Blog

Back in 1984, the Supreme Court made an important ruling in the Chevron case. While the Chevron deference may sound like a chess strategy, it refers to a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.

In 1984, the court decided that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. The idea was that if Congress passes a law where something is unclear – or there is a gap – it is up to an agency to fill it in.

This “Chevron doctrine” has hugely impacted how regulations are made across many industries, including the fast-growing home care sector.

The idea behind Chevron is that agencies, with their specialized expertise and accountability to the executive branch, are better positioned than courts to interpret vague laws. 

By deferring to reasonable agency interpretations, the courts avoid overstepping their role and injecting their policy preferences into the regulatory process.

How Chevron affects home care

The Chevron framework has been central to how courts review key home care regulations defining the labor standards that apply to caregivers issued by the Department of Labor (DOL).

Two prominent examples illustrate Chevron’s influence.

The companionship services exemption

One crucial case involved the definition of “companionship services” under a law called the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA generally requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime but has an exemption for workers providing “companionship services” to people who cannot care for themselves due to age or disability.

In 2013, the DOL issued a rule narrowing this companionship exemption, extending FLSA protections to many home care workers who were excluded. 

Home care industry groups challenged the DOL’s new rule, but in 2015, a court upheld it, saying the agency had reasonably interpreted the ambiguous “companionship services” language under the Chevron doctrine.

The scope of FLSA coverage

Another key home care case was about the scope of FLSA coverage. In 2007, the DOL said the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime rules applied to most home care workers, even those employed by third-party agencies rather than directly by consumers.

Home care groups fought this, but the Supreme Court sided with the DOL in 2015, deferring to the agency’s reasonable reading of the FLSA under Chevron.

Also watch:

What this means for providers, caregivers, and consumers

These Chevron-influenced decisions have significantly impacted the home care industry, caregivers, and people who rely on these services.

For providers, the expanded worker protections have increased labor costs, putting pressure on profit margins in an industry already dealing with low government reimbursement rates. Providers argue this could limit access to home care.

But for caregivers, the Chevron rulings have been a big win, guaranteeing basic labor standards like minimum wage and overtime that many were previously denied. It has helped raise incomes, though challenges like lack of benefits and job security remain.

Consumers also have a stake, as the higher provider costs from expanded worker protections could translate to higher prices for home care services. But, ensuring a stable, well-compensated home care workforce is also crucial for meeting growing demand from an aging population.

The future of Chevron

Any changes to Chevron would likely have major implications for the home care sector. If the courts took a more active role in reviewing agency interpretations, it could empower home care providers, including new homecare agency startups to more aggressively challenge DOL regulations, extending labor protections to workers.

It could roll back hard-won gains, potentially reducing wages, benefits, and working conditions for many in the home care workforce.

Conversely, the continued vitality of Chevron could solidify the DOL’s regulatory authority, allowing the agency to further expand its oversight of home care employment practices. 

It could drive up costs for providers but also strengthen the social safety net for caregivers for the elderly, who have historically been among the most vulnerable in the U.S. labor market.

Ultimately, the fate of the Chevron doctrine will shape the balance of power between federal agencies, the courts, home care providers, and the home care workforce. 

As the home care industry grows, the legal and regulatory framework governing this sector will only become more consequential for workers, consumers, and the broader economy. Monitoring the evolution of this key legal precedent will be crucial for understanding the future direction of home care policy.