Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007)

In Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, the underlying dispute arose from the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding the classification of companionship workers. Evelyn Coke, a home health aide employed by Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., sought to challenge the company's classification of her as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA. The case centered on whether the Department of Labor's regulation, which allowed for an exemption for companionship workers employed by agencies rather than directly by families, was valid. Coke argued that she was entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay, as her work did not fit within the exemption provided by the FLSA. The procedural history of the case began when Coke filed a lawsuit against Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claiming violations of the FLSA. The district court ruled in favor of Long Island Care, stating that the Department of Labor's regulation was valid and binding. Coke appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court's ruling. Subsequently, the case was brought before the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to resolve the conflict regarding the interpretation of the companionship services exemption under the FLSA. The relevant background context includes the 1974 amendments to the FLSA, which expanded coverage to many domestic service employees while simultaneously creating exemptions for certain categories, including companionship workers. The Department of Labor had issued regulations interpreting these exemptions, leading to confusion and controversy over their application, particularly regarding workers employed by agencies rather than directly by families. This case highlighted the ongoing debate over labor rights for domestic service workers and the interpretation of federal labor laws in the context of changing employment practices in the caregiving industry.

Whether the Department of Labor's regulation, which interprets the Fair Labor Standards Act to exempt companionship workers employed by agencies other than the family or household using their services, is valid and binding in light of the statute's text and history.

The Court of Appeals’ judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.