Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that change to interpretation of regulation resulted in a direct and immediate impact on the home health care industry in general
• holding that where home care agency was joint employer with the household receiving services, there was no exemption, and the joint employer was required to pay overtime
• holding that the domestic services exemption from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the MWA is more narrow than the FLSA’s exemption and “more beneficial to our Commonwealth’s employees”
• recognizing that FLSA “establishes only a national floor under which wage protections cannot drop” and “does not prohibit state regulation of wages and overtime if the state’s standards-are more beneficial to workers”
• holding that federal regulations pertaining to the domestic service exemption to the FLSA did not apply to the analogous but narrower PMWA exemption and that Pennsylvania may interpret its law in a manner more beneficial to employees than federal law
• finding that Pennsylvania’s domestic services exemption, which is more limited than the comparable exemption under the FLSA, was not preempted because it is more protective of a worker’s right to a minimum wage and overtime than the FLSA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).