Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska, Inc.
651 F.3d 1007
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs worked as house parents in FCSA's Therapeutic Family Homes housing up to five emotionally disturbed children.
- Children attended public school and received most medical/psychological treatment outside the Homes; Plaintiffs were not licensed medical or social service professionals.
- District court held the Homes were an institution primarily engaged in the care of the mentally ill, making them subject to FLSA overtime.
- Court relied on 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(2)(A) and analogies to Medicaid definitions and FCSA’s marketing as residential care.
- The Ninth Circuit granted interlocutory review to determine whether the Homes are covered enterprises under the FLSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Homes are an institution under § 203(r)(2)(A). | Probert/Intervenors: Homes qualify as institutions primarily engaged in care. | FCSA: Homes are not institutions under the statute. | No; not an institution under § 203(r)(2)(A). |
| Whether the Homes are primarily engaged in providing care as contemplated by the statute. | Homes provide care to mentally ill children on-site. | Care provided is not the professional care the statute contemplates; Homes function as residences. | No; not primarily engaged in the type of care the statute requires. |
| Whether FOH guidance should interpret § 203(r)(2)(A) to include Homes. | FOH broadens 'institutions primarily engaged in the care' to include such Homes. | FOH is not proper interpretive policy for this case; not controlling. | No; FOH not a controlling interpretive source. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dent v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., 502 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.2007) (FLSA remedial construction favoring coverage where appropriate)
- Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.2009) (statutory ambiguity illuminated by canons of construction)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court 2001) (avoid superfluous language; interpret statutes sensibly)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (Supreme Court 2008) (noscitur a sociis prefacing contextual interpretation)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court 2000) (FOH cannot be used to establish interpretative policy)