Opinion ID: 3011219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mandela and Visions programs residences

Text: are not private We construe FLSA exemptions narrowly against the employer. See Mitchell v. Kentucky Fin. Co., 359 U.S. 290, 11 295 (1959); Reich v. Gateway Press, Inc. , 13 F.3d 685, 694 (3d Cir. 1994). The District Court concluded, as a matter of law, that RHD had not overcome its significant burden in establishing its affirmative defense. W e agree. Several aspects of the Mandela and Visions living arrangements support the District Court's conclusion that the companionship exemption does not apply. For example, RHD clients do not have a possessory interest in their RHD homes. The right of RHD clients to remain in their housing depends completely on their continued relationship with RHD. If clients terminate that relationship, they cannot remain in RHD housing. This is not the kind of possessory interest individuals enjoy in a private home. RHD clients do not have full control over others' access to their RHD homes. RHD retains keys to the homes of all clients in the Mandela and Visions pr ogram. Indeed, RHD keeps the only set of keys with respect to nearly half the clients in the Mandela program. Less than half of the clients in that program (five of eleven) have keys to their houses. RHD clients do not have unfettered freedom in their dayto-day conduct. They must comply with rules that do not typically apply to adults in private homes. One such rule requires RHD clients to be dressed when outside their rooms between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. This rule is incongruous with the notion of a private home.9 Given the contours of the living arrangements at issue here, and the rule that FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed against the employer , we conclude as a matter of law the RHD residences are notprivate homes _________________________________________________________________ 9. As noted by the District Court, Terwilliger differs from this case in important respects. See Madison, Civ. No. 97-7402, slip op. at 8. In Terwilliger, the court placed a significant emphasis on the nature of the possessory interest clients had in the pr operty in question. The clients there had either an ownership or direct lessee interest in the property. See Terwilliger, 21 F. Supp. 2d at 1299-1300. In contrast, RHD's clients have significant restrictions placed on their interest and rights concerning the property. They sublease the property from RHD, and their right to remain on the property is tied directly to their continued involvement in the RHD-administered program. 12 for purposes of S 213(a)(15). We will affirm the District Court's holding that the FLSA applies to the plaintiffs' employment relationship with RHD. We now turn to the question whether RHD's contributions to the Fairshare accounts should be included in plaintiffs' regular and overtime pay rates.