Search form

New Rule Requires Home Care Employers to Pay Minimum Wage, Overtime to Their Direct Care Employees

By Felice B. Ekelman, Evan M. Rosen and Eric P. Simon
  • October 25, 2013

Altering the home care business model that has existed for nearly 40 years, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a new rule limiting the use of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “companionship” exemption to home care workers employed directly by members of a household rather than by a third-party employer. Home care companies that rely on the “companionship” exemption to the federal minimum wage and overtime requirements need to reexamine their pay practices with respect to their direct care employees in the wake of the new rule, which becomes effective January 1, 2015.

At present, home care companies could apply the companionship exemption to their certified nursing assistants, home health aides, and other direct care workers. Subject to state law, the exemption is applicable to any employee who provides services for the care, fellowship, and protection of persons who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for themselves. The exemption covers employees engaged in a wide variety of job tasks, including meal preparation, bed making, clothes washing, and other personal services. It even encompasses general household work as long as that work does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked by the companion worker. 

Under the new rule, however, that will change. The exemption will apply only to individuals employed directly by the household. As a result, in a little more than a year, home care companies can expect a considerable increase to their payroll expenses. DOL estimates that the rule change will affect approximately two million home care workers.

According to the DOL, significant changes in the home care industry and the prevalence of the home care business over the past few decades prompted the rule change. Certified nursing assistants, home health aides, and other employees of third-party employers perform duties to assist the elderly or infirm in the home. Traditionally, parents, family members, or members of the community performed those duties. Moreover, direct care workers providing similar duties in a nursing home or assisted living facility, rather than in an individual’s home, have long received minimum wage and overtime pay under federal law, the DOL reasoned. Thus, the rule change, DOL explained, is a way to provide parity to home care workers. 

The final rule poses significant wage and hour risks to home care employers. Because plaintiffs often bring wage and hour claims on a collective or class basis, the potential liability, including back pay and penalties, can cripple a business. Accordingly, home care employers should evaluate the impact the final rule will have on their operations to limit possible liability under wage and hour law. Failure to modify pay practices to comply with the new rule may make an organization an enticing target for plaintiffs’ attorneys and the DOL.

Recommended Employer Actions

Employers should consult with their labor and employment counsel and human resources professionals to ensure compliance with the final rule and all applicable wage and hour laws. Employers should consider the following actions:

  • Pay home care workers at least $7.25 an hour (or higher, depending on applicable federal or state law at the time) and overtime at time-and-a-half the regular rate of pay for all hours over 40 in a workweek, effective January 1, 2015.
  • Modify time tracking policies and procedures to account for employees’ time in transit between home visits during the continuous workday. 
  • Review overtime calculations to ensure the regular rate includes all non-discretionary forms of payment, such as bonuses.
  • Revise the company’s employee handbook, policies and procedures to address overtime, off-the-clock, time-keeping, safe harbors, and other wage and hour issues.
  • Audit the company’s time-keeping practices to ensure hours are accurately recorded (consider having employees sign an affirmation stating they have accurately recorded all time worked and have received compensation for all such hours).
  • Review pay practices with respect to travel time, in-service training, and overnight shifts.
  • Ensure compliance with applicable state law.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss the final rule and the impact it will have on your business, as well as other workplace law issues. 

©2013 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

May 10, 2019

Commission-Only Inside Salespersons are Entitled to Overtime and Sunday Pay Under Massachusetts Law

May 10, 2019

Adhering to the “plain and ordinary” language of the state’s overtime statute and related regulations, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that inside sales employees paid on a 100% commission basis are additionally entitled to pay for overtime hours worked and premium pay for work on Sundays. Sullivan v. Sleepy’s LLC, 2019... Read More

May 7, 2019

California’s ‘ABC’ Test for Independent Contractor Analysis to be Applied Retroactively

May 7, 2019

California employers were dealt another setback in the responding to claims of misclassification of independent contractor status for violations of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order (“IWC Wage Orders”). Noting California’s “basic legal tradition” that “judicial decisions are given retroactive effect,” the U.S. Court of Appeals... Read More

Related Practices