## Facts

- Evelyn Coke worked as a home health care attendant providing “companionship services” to elderly and infirm individuals in their homes, but she was employed by a home-care agency rather than by the household.
- She sued her employer for minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- The FLSA’s “domestic service” coverage includes an exemption for employees providing companionship services, “as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary” of Labor.
- The Department of Labor promulgated a regulation stating that the companionship-services exemption applies even when the worker is employed by a third-party employer or agency rather than the family or household receiving the services.
- The district court dismissed Coke’s suit, treating the third-party regulation as valid and controlling.
- The court of appeals twice held the third-party regulation invalid, concluding it conflicted with the statute and other regulations and warranted neither Chevron nor Skidmore deference.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Labor’s regulation extending the FLSA companionship-services exemption to workers employed by third-party agencies is valid and binding.
2. Whether that regulation is entitled to Chevron deference despite being placed in a regulatory subpart labeled “Interpretations.”
3. Whether the regulation is a reasonable construction of the statute and consistent with the agency’s related regulations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The Court held the third-party regulation is valid and legally binding and therefore entitled to Chevron deference.
- The Court concluded the FLSA leaves unresolved whether third-party-employed companionship workers are exempt, and Congress delegated to the Department of Labor authority to “define and delimit” the relevant terms.
- The Court rejected the view that the “Interpretations” label eliminated the regulation’s binding effect where it was issued pursuant to delegated authority using notice-and-comment procedures.
- The Court found no fatal inconsistency between the third-party regulation and the agency’s general definition of “domestic service employment.”

## Legal Principles

- When Congress delegates authority to an agency to “define and delimit” statutory terms and the statute leaves a gap, the agency may fill that gap through reasonable regulations that have binding legal effect.
- Regulations adopted under delegated authority through notice-and-comment rulemaking generally receive Chevron deference, even if placed under a heading such as “Interpretations,” where the rule was intended to be binding.
- An agency’s specific regulation may permissibly clarify how a general regulatory definition applies to a particular category of workers.
- An agency is not barred from modifying or clarifying its interpretive stance over time, so long as it acts within its authority and complies with applicable procedural requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Department of Labor’s rule extending the FLSA companionship-services exemption to attendants employed by third-party agencies, holding the regulation was a reasonable, binding exercise of delegated rulemaking authority entitled to Chevron deference.


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