935 F.3d 703
9th Cir.2019Background
- California’s IHSS program provides in‑home care; CDSS issues statewide regulations but counties (including Los Angeles County) administer parts of the program and have some hiring/payroll/oversight roles. Plaintiffs are Los Angeles IHSS providers claiming unpaid FLSA overtime.
- In 2013 DOL promulgated a final rule narrowing the FLSA "companionship" exemption, with an original effective date of January 1, 2015, making many homecare providers overtime‑eligible.
- A D.C. district court vacated the rule (Weil I); the D.C. Circuit reversed (Weil II), reinstating the rule; the DOL then announced limited non‑enforcement windows and delayed active enforcement until November 12, 2015 (and signaled discretionary forbearance through Dec. 31, 2015).
- Plaintiffs sued California and Los Angeles County under the FLSA for unpaid overtime from January 1, 2015 through February 1, 2016 (State began paying Feb. 1, 2016); State was voluntarily dismissed and suit proceeded against the County.
- District court denied County’s claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity but held the effective start of the private collective period was November 12, 2015 (date DOL began enforcement post‑mandate). County appealed immunity denial; plaintiffs appealed the effective‑date holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Los Angeles County is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an "arm of the State" | County cannot claim immunity; counties are not arms of the state | County contends it acted as an arm of the state implementing a state program and so is immune | County is not an arm of the State; Eleventh Amendment immunity denied |
| Proper test for arm‑of‑state status | Mitchell five‑factor test applies; focus on state treasury responsibility | County urged different emphasis from Hess (control/dignity) | Applied Mitchell; treasury (state‑funding of judgments) is dispositive and weighs against immunity |
| Whether D.C. Circuit reversal (Weil II) reinstituted the rule retroactively to Jan 1, 2015 | Weil II merely explained law as it always was; original effective date stands, so private claims may reach back to Jan 1, 2015 | County argued reinstated rule cannot create liability earlier than appellate mandate/enforcement date; DOL non‑enforcement shows intent | Held the rule’s effective date is January 1, 2015; retroactive application not impermissible here |
| Whether DOL’s discretionary non‑enforcement precludes private FLSA suits before DOL enforcement | Private rights under FLSA exist regardless of agency enforcement discretion | County argued agency non‑enforcement meant no private liability until DOL enforced | Held agency forbearance does not eliminate private rights of action; private suits may cover Jan 1, 2015 onward |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Care Ass’n of Am. v. Weil, 799 F.3d 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (reversed district court vacatur of DOL’s domestic‑service rule)
- Mitchell v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1988) (five‑factor arm‑of‑state test for Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Hess v. Port Authority Trans‑Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (consideration of state treasury, control, and dignity in Eleventh Amendment analysis)
- GTE South, Inc. v. Morrison, 199 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 1999) (agency rule reinstated on appeal applies as of original effective date)
- US West Commc’ns v. Jennings, 304 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (followed Morrison; reinstated regulations apply to conduct during vacatur)
- Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693 (1973) (California counties possess independent corporate status relevant to immunity analysis)