218 F. Supp. 3d 978
W.D. Ark.2016Background
- Bost, Inc., a nonprofit care provider in Arkansas, employed Plaintiffs as in-home caregivers for clients who lived in the caregivers’ own homes.
- Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), claiming unpaid overtime for hours worked over 40 per week while caring for clients in Plaintiffs’ homes.
- Bost moved for summary judgment asserting the pre-2015 "companionship services" exemption applied, which exempts domestic in-home caregivers from overtime unless they performed more than 20% of weekly hours on general household work.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment that the exemption does not apply, arguing Bost bears the burden to prove the exemption and that record gaps defeat that burden.
- The court determined (1) the pre-2015 regulations govern most of the disputed period; (2) Plaintiffs bear a limited burden to show they in fact performed unpaid general household work exceeding 20% of weekly hours; and (3) Plaintiffs produced no evidence meeting that burden.
- Result: summary judgment for Bost in part — Cummings’s claims dismissed in full; Martinez, Pierini, and Ringuis’s claims dismissed for periods before Jan 1, 2015; Plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the companionship services exemption to pre-2015 work | The exemption is Bost’s burden; gaps in employer records mean exemption cannot be proven so Plaintiffs entitled to judgment | Plaintiffs were hired to provide care (not general household work); exemption applies unless Plaintiffs show they performed >20% general household work | Held for Bost: Plaintiffs failed to meet their (limited) burden to show they performed >20% general household work, so exemption applies for pre-2015 periods |
| Burden allocation on the 20% general-household-work exception | Bost must disprove the exception; Plaintiffs need not produce evidence of hours | Bost says employee must first produce evidence that they actually performed such work before burden shifts | Held: Employees have a low initial burden to produce evidence they performed unpaid general household work >20%; only then does burden shift to employer |
| Effectiveness date of the amended (post-2015) DOL regulations | Plaintiffs: rule effective Jan 1, 2015; claims after that date analyzed under new rule | Bost: non-enforcement guidance means new rule effective Nov 12, 2015; prior rule applies earlier | Held: Court treats amended rule as effective Jan 1, 2015; therefore summary judgment denied for periods after Dec 31, 2014 for employees paid hourly then |
| AMWA claims interpretation | AMWA exemption differs so Plaintiffs’ state claims survive | AMWA parallels FLSA; state regs direct use of 29 C.F.R. Part 552 | Held: AMWA claims interpreted like FLSA; pre-2015 AMWA claims dismissed where FLSA exemption applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fezard v. United Cerebral Palsy of Cent. Ark., 809 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2016) (employee-provided in-home care in caregiver’s own residence qualifies as "domestic service employment")
- Spinden v. G.S. Roofing Prods. Co., 94 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 1996) (FLSA exemptions are construed narrowly; employer bears burden to prove exemption applies)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (reasonable jury standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (employee’s burden to prove unpaid work and burden-shifting when employer records are inadequate)
- Herman v. Palo Grp. Foster Home, Inc., 183 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 1999) (application of Mt. Clemens burden-shifting in home-care context)
- Home Care Ass’n of Am. v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding DOL rule amending companionship-services regulations)