Case ID: f-appx_270/html/0839-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fiona WHITE, Nordia Gordon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs—Appellants, Jean E. Barreau, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SENIOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation formerly known as Straw Consulting, Inc., Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 07-14466
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 21, 2008.
    Christopher C. Sharp, Sharp Law Firm, P.A., Robert S. Norell, Robert S. Norell, P.A., Plantation, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Joan M. Canny, Kara A. Nickel, Robert S. Turk, Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

We find no error in the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs fall within the “companionship services” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15), because they conceded that— in the words of their opposition to the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings — they “are companion services employees employed by [the defendant].” We do not find persuasive the plaintiffs’ attempt on appeal to qualify that and other similar statements as conceding only that the plaintiffs performed some companionship services, such that there might be an issue of fact as to whether they performed sufficient companionship services to fall within the Department of Labor’s definition of “companionship services.” See 29 C.F.R. § 552.6.

The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.