Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD., et al., Petitioners, v. Evelyn COKE. No. 06-593. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 16, 2007. Decided June 11, *2344 H. Bartow Farr, Washington, D.C., for the petitioners. David B. Salmons, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Harold C. Becker, Chicago, IL, respondent. Daniel Alter, Alter & New York, NY, III, Counsel Record, Richard G. Taranto, Farr DC, Michael Shen, Craig Respondent. Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. A provision Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from statute's minimum wage and maximum hours rules "any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services individuals who (because age or infirmity) are unable care themselves (as such terms defined delimited regulations Secretary [of Labor])." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). Department regulation (labeled an "interpretation") says that this statutory exemption includes those "companionship" workers "are employer agency other than family household using their services." CFR 552.109(a) (2006). The question before us is whether, light text history, a different (apparently conflicting) regulation, Department's valid binding. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844, 104 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984). We conclude it is. I In 1974, Congress amended 1938 (FLSA Act), 52 Stat. 1060, include many "domestic service" employees not previously subject its hour requirements. Amendments 1974 (1974 Amendments), §§ 7(b)(1), (2), 88 62 (adding 206(f), which provides employees, 207(l), extends overtime restrictions employees). When doing so, simultaneously created excluded FLSA coverage certain subsets "employed employment," including babysitters on casual basis" described above. 7(b)(3), 62, (codified at 213(a)(15)). (Department DOL) then promulgated set included two issue here. first, forth subpart proposed entitled "General Regulations," defines term employment" "services nature performed about private home ... person whom he she cooks, waiters, butlers, valets, maids, housekeepers, governesses, nurses, janitors, laundresses, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, chauffeurs automobiles use [as well as] basis." 40 Fed.Reg. 7405 (1975) *2345 (emphasis added) 552.3). second, later subsection "Interpretations," exempt "who [whether not] [is assigned] more one same workweek ." 7407 552.109(a)). This latter (which we shall call "third-party regulation") has proved controversial recent years. On least three separate occasions during past 15 years, considered changing narrowing order bring within scope FLSA's paid third parties (other members persons receiving services, under proposals were remain exempt). 58 69310-69312 (1993); 60 Fed. Reg. 46798 (1995); 66 5481, 5485 (2001). But ultimately decided make any change. 67 16668 (2002). B 2002, Coke (respondent), worker "companionship services" elderly infirm men women, brought lawsuit against her former employer, Long Island Care Home, Ltd., owner, Maryann Osborne (petitioners). App. 1, 19; 267 F. Supp. 332, 333-334 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). She alleged petitioners failed pay wages was York statute, sought judgment unpaid wages. 21-22. All assume present purposes entitles payments if, but only does apply third-party agencies Care. District found controlling, consequently dismissed Coke's lawsuit. F.Supp.2d, 341. appeal, Second Circuit "unenforceable" aside Court's judgment. 376 F.3d 118, 133, 135 (2004). certiorari. At Solicitor General's suggestion, vacated Circuit's decision remanded case so could consider DOL "Advisory Memorandum" explaining (and defending) regulation. 546 1147, 126 1189, 163 1125 (2006); E Pet. Cert. 50a (Wage Hour Advisory Memorandum No.2005-1 (Dec. 2005) (hereinafter Memorandum)). memorandum convince Circuit, again held unenforceable. 462 48, 50-52 (2006) (per curiam). And time, granted petition argument. II have pointed out "`power administrative administer congressionally created... program necessarily requires formulation policy making fill gap left, implicitly explicitly, Congress.'" Chevron, U.S., 843, 2778 (quoting Morton Ruiz, 415 199, 231, 94 1055, 39 270 (1974); omission original). fills "gap" reasonably, accordance with *2346 applicable (e.g., procedural) requirements, courts accept result legally 2778; Mead Corp., 533 218, 227, 121 2164, 150 292 case, explicitly leaves gaps, example definition It power these gaps through regulations. Ibid.; Amendments, 29(b), 76 (authorizing "to prescribe necessary rules, regulations, orders regard amendments made Act"). matter concerns respect expert, interstitial matter, i.e., portion broader definition, details which, said, entrusted work out. focused fully upon question. gave notice, received public comment, issued final comment. 35383 7404. Mead, supra, 230, 2164. resulting fall irrespective pays them. Since face seems gap, might ask what precisely unreasonable otherwise unlawful? Respondent argues, concluded, thorough examination regulation's content, method promulgation, context reveals serious legal problemsproblems led particular, respondent claims falls outside Congress' delegation; inconsistent another, governing regulation; "interpretive" warranting judicial deference; improperly promulgated. examine each turn. refers language exempting themselves." words limit provision's receive (or part person's household) exclude "third parties." advances several arguments favor position. points overall purpose namely extend coverage, see, e.g., H.R.Rep. 93-232, pp. 2, 8 (1973); notes prior already covered large enough, annual sales, qualify "enterprise coverage" provisions, 206(a), 207(a)(1) (1970 ed.), see 203(r), (s)(1) (defining "enterprise" engaged commerce production goods commerce")); concludes must therefore meant tries bolster argument *2347 pointing statements some Members floor debates over Amendments. See, 119 Cong. Rec. 24801 (1973) (statement Sen. Burdick) ("I am concerned professional daily living," rather "people aged father, mother, neighbor comes sits them"). also Social Security "a employer." 26 3510(c)(1) (2000 ed.) added; internal quotation marks omitted). do find convincing. broadly expressly instructs broad definitions. whether definitions details. Although third-party-paid workers, did point cover others. cover, example, directly family; nor smaller agencies. how, should raises complex questions. Should all parties? Or perhaps working (say, small) agencies, hired son daughter help mother living distant city? none? How weigh need simple, uniform application fact (but all) covered? Satisfactory answers questions may turn kind knowledge ability consult length affected agency, Labor, possesses. reasonable infer infer) intended grant definitional authority answer kinds Because statute legislative add unlike third-party-employment Compare Nor can clear history. Burdick, quoted above), with, id., 24798 Johnston) (expressing concern requiring payment expensive people would be forced force take parents). conflicts Regulation" employment." Title 552.3 covers "of employee[s]" ranging "maids" "cooks" "housekeepers" "caretakers" others, "in employed" added). 552.101(a). *2348 party man woman "home (i.e., employer). Hence, inconsistent, limits employee" 213(a)(15) household, subclass household. adds that, given conflict, govern (primarily because, view, deference, address Part II-C, infra). correct when literal exemption. remains, however, governs conflict. Department, Memorandum, suggests governs, agree, reasons. First, if decide contrary, General Regulation, 552.3, controls employment, our interpretation create problems. states supplying "[a]s [that is] used" exemption, 213(a)(15), rule appears ways been supply whole (a prospect endorses Memorandum). Why else extensive list qualifying professions, virtually none anything subjects babysitting services? 552.3's (including [employer]" language) across FLSA, place chauffeurs, party. That clearly contrary intent enacting particularly withdraw provisions Act. If, hand, limited provision, applying literally (by removing exemption) Act's simply third-party-employed institutions, member whenever lived invalid. Nothing contingent chose reside invalid, herself wish avoid. Brief 34, n. 31. Second, normally specific general. E.g., Morales Trans World Airlines, 504 374, 384-385, 112 2031, 157 (1992); Simpson States, 435 6, 15, 98 909, 55 70 (1978). sole 552.109(a), explain how applies entities, *2349 whereas primary (if sole) conflicting general describe someone employee. Given context, Third, concede interpreted differently times 69311 (employees they jointly "by services"); D. Sweeney, Opinion Letter, Home Health Aides/Companionship Exemption, 6A LRR, Wages Hours Manual 99:8205 (Jan. 1999) (similar). long interpretive changes no unfair surpriseand recourse notice-and-comment rulemaking attempt codify new interpretation, 69311, makes surprise unlikely herethe change alone presents ground disregarding interpretation. Cf. Bowen Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 204, 212, 109 468, 102 493 (1988). Fourth, concede, out, most personnel written response litigation. "no reason," suspect [this] interpretation" merely "`post hoc rationalizatio[n]'" action, "does reflect agency's fair question." Auer Robbins, 519 452, 462, 117 905, 137 79 (1997) Bowen, supra). Where, here, course action indicates own reflects viewsthe struggled since 1993we accepted own, even views brief. 905. For reasons, principle "controlling" unless "`"plainly erroneous with"'" being interpreted. Id., 461, 905 Robertson Methow Valley Citizens 490 359, 1835, 351 (1989), quoting Bowles Seminole Rock Sand Co., 325 410, 414, 65 1215, 89 1700 (1945)). Udall Tallman, 380 16-17, 85 792, 13 616 (1965). C argues delegation, perfectly reasonable, complies law, still treat Her reason one. used, "gap," view means. "persuade" reviewing court, Skidmore Swift 323 134, 140, 161, 124 (1944), will "bind" court. 232, 2164 *2350 ("interpretive enjoy status class" added)). Like respondent, Appeals concluded hence F.3d, 131-133, 50-51. based conclusion considerations: series implement exemptions, pt. 552, placed Subpart B, A, Regulations." said .4, .5, .6, contained "definitions" "require[s]." initially "defin[e] delimi[t] ter[m] `domestic employee,'" while "se[t] statement concerning [FLSA] employees." 131-132, 50-51 35382). These reasons carry weight. thing, considerations strongly suggest binding authority. conduct public, "`affecting individual rights obligations.'" Chrysler Corp. Brown, 441 281, 302, 99 1705, 208 (1979) Morton, 1055). promulgating rule, used full procedures, Administrative Procedure producing rule. 5 553(b)(3)(A) (exempting "interpretative policy, organization, procedure, practice" procedures). Each time amending similarly procedures. 69310 46797 30 according disputed respondent), treated like exercise 63a-64a. another heading "Interpretations" indicia relied) refer contains matters detail, interpreting A. Indeed, B's regulationsinvolving "credit[s]" "food," "lodging," "drycleaning," 552.100(b), forthstrongly indicate details, direct language, issue. Finally, ultimate intended, expected, within, outside, delegation "gap-filling" Where sets important duties, where focuses issue, uses procedures promulgate authority, itself *2351 court ordinarily assumes defer determination. 229-233, insufficient, overcome factors mentioned, law requires. D Respondent's claim leading promulgation "defective" because notice inadequate explanation inadequate. agree. conducting publish "either substance description issues involved." 553(b)(3). Courts generally mean adopts `logical outgrowth' proposed." National Black Media Coalition FCC, 791 F.2d 1016, 1022 (C.A.2 1986). also, Steelworkers America, AFL-CIO-CLC Marshall, 647 1221 (C.A.D.C.1980), cert. denied sub nom. Lead Industries Assn., Donovan, 453 913, 101 3148, 69 997 (1981); South Terminal EPA, 646, 659 (C.A.1 1974). object, short, notice. Initially seeks, left rules) employers had 1974. 35385 (companionship "not exempt" "covered enterprise" FLSA). implication enterprises agencies) proposal, presence considering matter; after consideration choose adopt proposal it. As turned treatment enterprises." determination exempted understand why possibility reasonably foreseeable. Arizona Public Serv. Co. 211 1280, 1299-1300 (C.A.D.C.2000) (notice sufficient first Indian tribes required meet "same requirements" review Clean Air permitting actions, adopted certain, though all, requirements), Michigan 532 970, 1600, 149 Neither significant problem "concluded exemptions available employers" "more consistent" "`any employee' `in' enumerated "prior practices worded *2352 exemptions." 7405. There indication anyone objected time. years remains albeit brief, explanation. Global Crossing Telecommunications, Metrophones 550 ___, 1513, 1525, 167 422 (2007). apparently consists proper account reference employees," (given history) services. If repeats form rejected. II-A, supra. III Appeals' reversed, remand further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 6