High court decision no help for home aides

WASHINGTON – The nation’s growing cadre of home health care aides is not entitled to minimum wages or overtime pay under federal law, even when working for private employers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 9-0 decision, which keeps in place a long-standing rule that denies minimum wages and overtime pay to those who provide “companionship services” at home, could trigger a move in Congress to amend the law.

With an estimated 1 million workers assisting the elderly and disabled in their homes, unions and civil rights groups had urged the justices to scrap this rule because it deprives many of the nation’s lowest-paid workers of a living wage.

They said a large percentage of these aides are women and minorities who often work all-night shifts.

Yet, under federal labor law, they are viewed as part-time baby sitters.

A federal appeals court in New York had ruled that the minimum-wage law applies to those home-care workers employed by a private company or a public agency.

If it had been upheld, the decision would have given overtime pay and minimum wages to the vast majority of the nation’s home-care workers.

But the Supreme Court said, in essence, it is up to Congress or the Labor Department to change the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Passed by Congress in 1938, the law is enforced through rules issued by the Labor Department.

The decision is “another blow to struggling, low-wage women,” said Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center.

It means “profit-making companies can legally choose to pay home-care workers deplorably low wages or deny them just compensation for overtime.”

The effect of the ruling will vary, since many states have their own minimum wage and overtime laws.

Union lawyers cited Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin as states with laws that ensure minimum wages and overtime for home-care workers.

The Service Employees International Union sued to challenge the exemption to minimum wages on behalf of Evelyn Coke, a 73-year-old retiree who worked more than 20 years in the homes of elderly patients as an employee of Long Island Care at Home.

Her suit was opposed by the city of New York and the home-care industry on grounds it would drive up costs of providing care for the poor and the elderly. New York City said a ruling in Coke’s favor would add $300 million a year to the cost of its Medicaid program, mostly because of the high cost of overtime.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the case avoids the broad issue of fair wages for home-care workers.

Instead, it focuses narrowly on whether the Labor Department’s regulations are a reasonable interpretation of what Congress intended.

Gerry Hudson, executive vice president of the Service Employees union, said the ruling will “hurt efforts to provide America’s growing senior population and people with disabilities with the quality, reliable in-home care they will need to live independently.”