Alaska Employment Law

In Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 2007 WL  1661472 (June 11, 2007), the Court upheld the validity of the DOL Interpretive Rule on the FLSA overtime rights of people who provide “companionship services” in the homes of aged or infirm individuals.  The DOL rule [29 CFR § 552.109(a)] exempts those employees from overtime protection without regard to whether they are employed by the homeowner, or a third-party. 

Much of the unanimous (written by J. Breyer) resolves or applies various statutory construction arguments, including:

1) the Interpretive Regulation trumps a contrary General Regulation (§ 552.3) because the former is more specific;

2) DOL’s earlier and inconsistent positions on the rights of companionship providers don’t prevent DOL from enforcing its current interpretation when the current interpretation arose from notice-and-comment rulemaking;

3) courts may defer to an agency position set out in mid-litigation briefs if the position reflects the agency’s “considered views”; and

4) Interpretive Regulations  that arise from notice-and-comment rulemaking are entitled to Chevron deference.

Oddly, neither Justice Scalia nor Thomas dissented from Breyer’s (albeit limited) discussion of legislative history.

In Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, 2007 WL 1661301  (June 11, 2007), the Court held that a single-employer sponsor of a defined-benefit pension plan has no fiduciary duty to consider a merger with a multi-employer plan as a method of terminating the plan.