## Facts

- The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires minimum wage and overtime but exempts certain domestic service employees providing “companionship services” and “live-in” domestic service, with those terms to be “defined and delimited” by the Secretary of Labor.
- A 1975 Department of Labor (DOL) regulation permitted third-party employers (such as home care agencies) to claim the companionship-services and live-in exemptions, which often excluded agency-employed home care workers from FLSA wage-and-hour protections.
- In 2013, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, DOL issued the Home Care Final Rule amending 29 C.F.R. § 552.109 to provide that third-party employers may not claim the companionship-services or live-in exemptions.
- Home care industry associations and providers sued to invalidate the 2013 rule, arguing DOL lacked statutory authority and acted unlawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court vacated the third-party-employer regulation, concluding DOL could not narrow the statutory exemptions in that manner.
- DOL appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FLSA unambiguously requires that third-party employers be permitted to claim the companionship-services and live-in domestic service exemptions.
2. If the statute is ambiguous, whether DOL’s interpretation barring third-party employers from those exemptions is permissible under Chevron.
3. Whether the 2013 rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court upheld the 2013 regulation, including 29 C.F.R. § 552.109, as a valid exercise of DOL’s delegated authority.
- The court concluded the statute leaves a gap on whether exemptions extend to third-party employers and that DOL’s resolution of that gap was reasonable and adequately explained.
- The court held the rule was not arbitrary or capricious and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress directs that statutory exemption terms be “defined and delimited” by the Secretary, that language signals delegated authority to specify the exemptions’ scope through regulation.
- If the statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific coverage question addressed by the agency (here, third-party employers), Chevron deference applies to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
- An agency may revise prior regulatory policy when it acknowledges the change and provides a reasoned explanation grounded in statutory purposes and relevant facts; a prior regulation does not “freeze” the statute’s meaning.
- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, a rule is valid where the agency explains its policy choice, responds to the relevant problem, and supports its change in position with a rational account.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit sustained DOL’s 2013 Home Care Final Rule barring third-party home care agencies from claiming the FLSA companionship-services and live-in exemptions, holding the statute delegates definitional authority to DOL, DOL’s interpretation was reasonable under Chevron, and the rule was adequately justified under the APA.


Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015)