F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
MAY 23 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
DEBORAH JOHNSTON, individually
and on behalf of others similarly
situated; DIANA RUSS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; BRIDGET A. AMES;
RUSSELL APPLEGATE; LAJOYA A.
BARNES; SHARON BATES; BETTY
J. BAUCOM; HELEN BERRY;
JIMMY BOSTIC; ALETA BRITT;
ANGELINE C. BROOKS;
SHAWNDA L. BROWN; DAWNA
CAMPBELL; EDNA J. CRABTREE;
PRISCILLA CRUME; SANDRA D.
DEVILLE; TINA M. ENGLISH;
LINDA HALL; PAT HARPER;
ROSIE M. JONES; ALYSA L.
KINNELL; THOMAS LAWRENCE, No. 99-5132
JR.; QUEEN E. LEWIS; MARIE A.
MAXWELL; PATRICIA R.
MCCARRELL; SEAN MCDANIEL;
CHARLES W. MULANAX; LUGENA
NWAIWA; TERRELL T. PALMER;
LOVERL RAMSEY; YOLANDA
RAMSEY; TRACY RICHARD;
TILEQUA L. SAVAGE; MIRIAM
SERWANGA; PATRICIA L.
STALEY; MICHELLE L. TYMA,
TERI VAUGHT; TERESA VEALES;
ERNEST WALSTON; JERILD A.
WALSTON; KARLA WALSTON;
SANDRA WILKINS; LAKEESA
GIBBONS; RHONDA D. WHEELER;
KELLY J. KAULAY; TRACY
EMERSON; DARREN J. HANNAH,
CHRISTI G. KING-WILLIAMS;
PAMELA J. BERRY; MICHAEL W.
GRAHAM; KIMBERLY JONES,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, INC.
Defendant - Appellant.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES,
Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1166-K)
JoAnne Deaton (Michael F. Smith of Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker &
Gable, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma; Richard Gann of Riggs Abney Neal Turpen
Orbison & Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma with her on the brief), for Defendant-
Appellant.
Steven R. Hickman of Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Mark Lawton Jones, Assistant Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Department
of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed a brief for Amicus Curiae.
-2-
Before BALDOCK , McKAY , and ALARCÓN , * Circuit Judges.
ALARCÓN , Circuit Judge.
Volunteers of America Oklahoma, Inc. (“the VAO”) appeals from the order
denying its motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims brought
against it by its employees who work as Habilitation Training Specialists and
Habilitation Training Specialist Managers (“Habilitation employees”) in
residences in the VAO’s supported living program. The Habilitation employees
filed a claim against the VAO seeking payment for working overtime. The VAO
contends that it is exempt from paying not less than one and one-half times the
hourly rate for work performed in excess of 40 hours a week to the Habilitation
employees in the supported living program, pursuant to the domestic services
exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 292 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). The district
court denied the VAO’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the
domestic services exemption does not apply to Habilitation workers assigned to
the supported living program because their services are not performed in private
homes. Following the denial of the VAO’s motion for summary judgment, the
parties stipulated to the amount of overtime wages, costs, and attorneys’ fees to
*
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior United States Circuit Judge
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
-3-
which the Habilitation employees would be entitled if the exemption did not
apply. Thereupon, the district court entered its final judgment. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291. Because we conclude that the record
shows that the Habilitation employees were not employed in private homes, we
affirm the denial of the VAO’s motion for summary judgment.
I
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to pay their
employees not less than one and one-half times the hourly rate for all hours
worked over forty in a workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 1
The FLSA
exempts employers from the maximum hour requirements for “any employee
employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for
individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves
(as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary).”
1
Section 207(a)(1) provides as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no
employer shall employ any of his employees who in any
workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production
of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours
unless such employee receives compensation for his
employment in excess of the hours above specified at a
rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate
at which he is employed.
-4-
29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). The regulations define domestic service employment as
“services of a household nature performed by an employee in or about a private
home (permanent or temporary) of the person by whom he or she is employed.”
29 C.F.R. § 552.3.
We must decide whether the Habilitation employees in the supported living
program perform services in or about the private home of a developmentally
disabled person “by whom he or she is employed.” The Habilitation employees
contend that they are entitled to overtime pay because they are employees of the
VAO and not the employees of the individuals who are unable to care for
themselves. They argue that 29 C.F.R. § 552.3 limits the exemption to services
performed in the private home of the individual who employs a Habilitation
employee. The Secretary of Labor’s regulations clearly provide, however, that
domestic service employees “who are employed by an employer other than the
family or household using their services” may also be exempt from the FLSA. 29
C.F.R. § 552.109(a). The Habilitation employees assert that “any reliance upon
29 C.F.R. § 552.109, an interpretation which does not have the effect of law, is
misplaced.”
We quite agree that we are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of a
statute that is unreasonable. In § 213(a)(15), Congress expressly left it to the
Secretary of Labor to define and delimit the terms in the statute by regulation.
-5-
The Supreme Court has instructed that courts must defer to a federal agency’s
interpretation of a statute unless the regulation is “arbitrary, capricious, or
manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). The contention that the
exception does not apply to domestic services employees who are not employed
directly by an individual in need of care, or his or her family has been rejected by
the courts that have been confronted with the same question. See Terwilliger v.
Home of Hope, Inc ., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 n.2 (N.D. Okla. 1998) (rejecting,
as inconsistent with 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a), the plaintiffs’ argument that the
private home exception did not apply because they were employed by the agency
and not the individual clients); Madison v. Resources for Human Development,
Inc. , 39 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (holding that pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 552.109, “[a]lthough the plaintiffs are employed by RHD rather than the
individuals they serve, that by itself does not exclude them from the exemption.”).
We are persuaded that the secretary’s interpretation is not arbitrary, capricious, or
manifestly contrary to § 213(a)(15). We hold that the fact that domestic service
employees are not employed by the individual receiving care, does not alone
exclude them from the exemption.
II
The VAO contends that the plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime payments
-6-
because the Habilitation employees perform domestic/companionship services in
the private homes of its clients in the supported living program. 2
We review the
denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. See Bennett v. Coors Brewing
Co. , 189 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 1999). We must determine whether there was
any genuine issue as to any material fact, and, if not, whether the district court
correctly applied the law to the facts construed in the light most favorable to the
party opposing summary judgment. See id.
We must construe the domestic services exemption narrowly, “in light of
the FLSA’s broad remedial aims.” Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. , 179 F.3d
1260, 1264 (10th Cir. 1999). The VAO bears the burden of proving that its
employees fit “plainly and unmistakenly within the [exemption’s] terms.” Id.
(internal quotations and citations omitted). In construing the exemption narrowly
we are required to give deference to the regulations promulgated by the
Department of Labor. See id.
The VAO provides assisted living domestic services to developmentally
disabled persons through two different programs. In the in-home program, the
VAO’s Habilitation employees perform services in the family home where the
developmentally disabled person resides with his or her parents or other family
2
The parties do not dispute the fact that the Habilitation employers in
the supported living program perform domestic/companionship services.
-7-
member. The family member in the in-home program makes all the household
management decisions such as the purchase of groceries, the arrangement of
furniture, and the payment of rent and utilities. The VAO does not occupy rooms
in the clients’ family home for use as an office. If the VAO’s services are
terminated, the client remains in the family home.
In the supported living program, the client does not reside with a family
member. The VAO typically selects a residence for the developmentally disabled
person, and sets up shared living arrangements with other developmentally
disabled persons. Up to three clients reside in the residences in the VAO
supported living program. The VAO signs the lease, and typically pays the rent
from the clients’ trust accounts. In the supported living program, only the clients
of the VAO may live together. The VAO usually selects the clients who will
share the same residence, although the client has the right to request a change of
roommate. If one of the clients terminates the VAO’s services and chooses a
different service provider than his roommate, one of them must leave the
residence.
The Habilitation employees manage the residences in the supported living
program. They buy the food, control access to it, and prepare the meals. The
VAO also controls access to the residences in the supported living program. If
the residence contains only one VAO client, and if the client or his guardian
-8-
terminate the VAO’s services, the client may remain in the residence pursuant to
the terms of the lease or rental agreement. In these residences, the Habilitation
employees may occupy a room in the residence to serve as an office and to house
desks and file cabinets. The Habilitation employees who provide services in the
supported living program also exercise control over their clients’ daily activities.
III
No circuit court has interpreted the meaning of the term “private home” as
used in 29 C.F.R. § 552.3. Several district courts, however, have addressed this
question. In Lott v. Rigby, 746 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Ga. 1990), the court ruled
that the plaintiffs, who were employed as house parents at the Stephens County
Independent Group Residence for the Mentally Retarded, were not employed in a
private home. Id. at 1085, 1088. The court relied on a 1975 administrative
opinion which stated that the exemption would not apply to employees providing
care to institutionalized persons, even if the services were provided in a
residential home setting. See id. at 1087 (citing Wage and Hour Opinion WH-
368, 91 W.H.M. 1031 (Nov. 25, 1975)). The court also noted that a private home
is a fixed abode of the individual or family and that it is a separate and distinct
dwelling maintained by the individual or family. See id. (citing H.R. Rep. No.
913, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in, 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News
2811, 2845). The court concluded that the fact that the home was the clients’ sole
-9-
residence was not enough to make it a private home. See id. The court also
determined that although the clients participated in the upkeep of the house as
part of their learning process, they certainly did not maintain the home. See id.
The next court to reach this issue ruled that the exemption did not apply to
plaintiffs who were Habilitation Training Specialists. See Linn v. Developmental
Servs. of Tulsa, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 574, 580 (N.D. Okla. 1995). The court
focused on the fact that the defendant acquired the residences and the furniture
for the clients and maintained a set of keys to the residences. See id. at 579. The
court noted that the clients who lived together were unrelated and were grouped
together for purposes of training and treatment, and that the defendant retained
substantial authority in determining the composition of the homes. See id. The
district court also relied on the fact that the clients did not pay the rent to the
landlords, but rather, the state paid the defendants who in turn paid the landlords.
See id. Like the court in Lott, the court in Linn found that although the clients
participated in the upkeep of the home, the service provider was ultimately
responsible for its maintenance. See id. The court concluded that the defendant
was in the business of providing both companionship and lodging to its clients
and that the residences were not private homes as contemplated by the legislative
history because they were more like lodging houses that act as business
enterprises. See id.; see also H.R. Rep. No. 913, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 1974
-10-
(“[A] dwelling house used primarily as a boarding or lodging house for the
purpose of supplying such services to the public, as a business enterprise, is not a
private home.”).
In Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Okla.
1998), a district court from the same district distinguished the facts set forth in
Linn. The district court concluded in Terwilliger that, based on the facts in the
record before it, the Habilitation training specialists provided
domestic/companionship services in private homes. The district court found that
the defendant did not acquire the residence or the furniture for the clients. See id.
Instead, 22% of the homes were owned by the clients’ parent or guardian and the
rest were leased in the clients’ names from third parties. See id. The defendants
did not co-sign the lease and the clients selected and purchased their own
furniture. See id. The court also found that, unlike Linn, the defendants only
kept keys to the residences for emergencies or to use with the clients’ express
permission. See id. The court also relied on the fact that the clients, not the
defendant, chose whether or not to have a housemate and who the housemate
would be. See id. The court noted that ten of the twenty seven homes were
occupied by a single client. See id.
Most recently, in Madison v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., 39
F. Supp. 2nd 542 (E.D. Pa. 1999), the district court ruled that the residence in
-11-
which the plaintiffs worked were not private homes. Id. at 548. In reaching its
decision, the court considered the decisions in Lott, Linn, and Terwilliger, as well
as a case from the Utah Supreme Court, Bowler v. Deseret Village Ass’n, Inc.,
922 P.2d 8 (Utah 1996). See id. at 545-46. The court acknowledged that, in light
of these decisions, it is clear that the inquiry into whether services are provided in
a private home for purposes of the domestic services’s exemption is “fact-specific
and to be made on a case-by-case basis, and that no one factor is dispositive.” Id.
at 546.
After evaluating all of the facts, the court in Madison concluded that the
defendant ran the residences “as part of an overall care program” and that the
clients lived there “as clients of the program.” Id. at 548. The court
acknowledged the fact that the clients were given the opportunity to make choices
for themselves, but found that ultimately the service provider was in charge of the
residence. See id. In reaching its conclusion, the district court was persuaded by
the fact that the service provider placed its clients in one of its existing locations,
or limited and supervised the clients’ choice of residence. See id. The district
court pointed out that the clients paid room and board fees to the defendant who
rented the houses and paid the expenses. See id. The district court also noted
that some of the residents did not have keys to the residences and were not
allowed to come and go as they pleased. See id. The court also relied on the fact
-12-
that the maintenance of the homes and the clients’ activities in them were
regulated by state law and the service provider’s rules. See id. Finally, the court
found significant the fact that the clients did not live in the homes before they
became clients of the service provider. See id.
The Ninth Circuit considered the application of the
domestic/companionship services’s exemption in McCune v. Oregon Senior
Servs. Div., 894 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1990). It did not, however, discuss the
meaning of the words “private home.” In McCune, the plaintiffs were full-time,
live-in attendants for elderly and disabled persons unable to care for themselves.
Id. at 1108. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the live-in
attendants came within the companionship exemption to the FLSA. The plaintiffs
in McCune did not seek overtime pay. Id. at 1111. The Ninth Circuit noted that
the plaintiffs “live with their clients at a near poverty level providing around-the-
clock care.” Id. at 1110. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument of the full-
time, live-in attendants that they should be entitled to the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA because “individuals providing services to the elderly and
infirm have a much less attractive job than those domestic service workers
providing service to other clients.” Id. at 1109. The court noted that if full-time,
live-in attendants received minimum wage, the elderly and infirm would “be
forced to forego the option of receiving these services in their homes if the cost
-13-
of the services increases.” Id. at 1110. This policy concern has no application in
this matter. The Habilitation employees who provide services in the supported
living program do not live with their clients or provide around-the-clock care.
We agree with the district court in Madison that a determination whether
domestic/companionship services are provided in a private home is “fact-specific
and to be made on a case-by-case basis, and that no factor is dispositive.”
39 F.Supp. 2d at 546. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the VAO, we conclude that it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that
Habilitation employees in the supported living program fit “plainly and
unmistakenly” within the overtime exemption for domestic service in private
homes because of our duty to construe narrowly § 218(a)(15). See Ackerman v.
Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 179 F.3d at 1264. The domestic/companionship services
performed by the Habilitation employees in the in-home program fit squarely
within the exemption. Just as the name of the program implies, the services are
performed in the family home of the developmentally disabled client. A family
member is present to give the client emotional support and to manage and
maintain the home in his or her best interests. The VAO’s clients in the
supported living program are placed in a residence outside the family home and
without the full-time, live-in care of a relative. Instead, they are housed in a
residence with strangers who are also developmentally disabled. Their diets and
-14-
daily activities are controlled by a Habilitation employee – not a family member.
While the lease to the residence may be co-signed by a client, the VAO has the
right to appropriate a room to use as an office for the Habilitation workers. These
residences, managed by VAO employees, do not fit plainly and unmistakenly into
the ordinary connotation of the words “private home” as used in 29 C.F.R.
§ 552.3, notwithstanding the fact that the lease may bear the name of a
developmentally disabled person. The district court did not err in denying the
VAO’s motion for summary judgment.
V
The VAO and the State of Oklahoma Department of Human Services urge
us to consider the history and the state policy interest behind the living
arrangements in its supported living program in evaluating whether these services
are provided in private homes. As a result of a class action law suit, the District
Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma entered an Order of
Deinstitutionalization, shutting down a state-run institution for developmentally
disabled individuals because it was found that the residents were neglected and
abused. See Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Mem’l Ctr., No. 85-C-437-E, 1987
WL 27104 (N.D. Okla. 1987). While the judgment implementing the court’s
order was on appeal the parties settled and proposed a consent decree that was
approved by the court. The consent decree stated:
-15-
A person’s place of residence is his/her home. The State shall
advocate that he/she may not be arbitrarily removed from the home
for reasons relating to his/her mental retardation, behavior or medical
condition. . . . Adults shall live with people of their choice.
Whenever possible, the building in which adults live shall either be
purchased or rented by the persons residing in it.
Pursuant to the consent decree, organizations such as the VAO enter into a
contract with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services where they agree to
provide services to the clients in exchange for reimbursement for approved
services on a fee-for-service hourly fixed rate. The service providers are required
to “document reasonable efforts to ensure consumers served through this Contract
are afforded freedom of choice in all aspects of service provision, for which the
Agency is responsible, unless such choice jeopardizes the consumers
independence and well-being.”
The policy considerations articulated here are important and ensure that
persons with developmental disabilities are treated with dignity and are given the
opportunity to integrate into mainstream society and to exercise freedom of
choice. The commendable policies reflected in the consent decree have no
bearing on the question whether the Habilitation employees who perform services
in a supported living program are entitled to overtime pay because they work in
residences managed by service providers. Whether or not the VAO’s employees
receive overtime wages does not change the fact that these residences likely meet
-16-
the goals of the consent decree and provide persons with developmental
disabilities a much more free and dignified existence than if they remained in a
large, state-run institution.
The Department of Human Services contends that whether the VAO’s
employees receive overtime wages does make a difference as to the kind of care
its clients may receive. The Department asserts that the absence of overtime wage
obligations ensures that the state is able adequately to reimburse service providers
such as the VAO for the care of its clients. The Department argues that if the
exemption does not apply, the availability of these important services would be
limited because the services would cost more to provide.
Our task is limited to determining whether the Secretary of Labor’s
limitation of the exemption to domestic/companionship services provided in the
private home of a disabled person is arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to
the FLSA. We conclude that the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the reach
of the exemption is reasonable. We lack the authority to broaden the coverage of
the exemption to residences that are maintained by a service provider. The fact
that the requirement that overtime pay should be paid to domestic services
providers in residences like those managed by the VAO may limit the availability
of such services should be addressed to Congress. We decline to broaden the
exemption to apply to residences that are not truly private homes.
-17-
VI
We AFFIRM the district court’s decision because we hold that the services
provided by the Habilitation employees in the supported living program are not
provided in the private homes of the developmentally disabled.
AFFIRMED.
-18-