Ensuring Access to Affordable and Quality Home Care for Seniors and People with Disabilities Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 24, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to reduce labor costs for home care providers and families by ensuring that certain home care workers, including those employed by agencies, remain exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime laws.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to explicitly preserve and codify exemptions from federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for workers providing companionship services and live-in domestic services. Crucially, it extends these exemptions to workers employed by third-party agencies, reversing a 2015 Department of Labor rule. It also removes the Secretary of Labor's authority to define these terms through regulation, instead establishing statutory definitions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is essential to ensure continued access to affordable home care services for seniors and people with disabilities. They contend that applying minimum wage and overtime rules to third-party employed care workers significantly increases costs for families and agencies, leading to reduced access to care and fewer available caregivers. Codifying these exemptions provides regulatory certainty and stability for the home care industry.
Opponents contend
Opponents would argue that this bill rolls back critical worker protections, potentially leading to lower wages and longer hours without fair compensation for a vulnerable workforce. They contend that home care workers, who are predominantly women and often people of color, deserve the same basic labor protections as other workers, and that denying them minimum wage and overtime perpetuates economic insecurity in the care economy.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed evaluation of its core provisions and their implications.
Section 2, adding FLSA Section 3(z)(1)
Statutory Definition of 'Companionship Services'
This provision establishes a specific legal definition for 'companionship services' under the FLSA. It includes providing fellowship, care, and protection for individuals who cannot care for themselves due to age or infirmity, encompassing non-medical personal care like assistance with daily living activities and related household work (e.g., meal prep, laundry), provided general household work does not exceed 20% of weekly hours. It explicitly excludes services requiring trained medical personnel.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this definition provides essential clarity and broadens the scope of services that can be exempt, making home care more affordable and accessible by reducing the regulatory burden on providers and families. It ensures that non-medical, supportive care remains distinct from skilled nursing.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this definition, while seemingly clear, could still allow for misclassification of workers, potentially denying minimum wage and overtime to individuals performing significant personal care and household tasks under the guise of 'companionship.'
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between providing a broad, flexible definition to support affordable home care and ensuring that workers are not exploited by being classified under an exemption when their duties extend beyond genuine companionship.
Section 2, adding FLSA Section 3(z)(2)
Statutory Definition of 'Domestic Service'
This provision provides a comprehensive statutory definition of 'domestic service' under the FLSA. It includes a wide range of household roles performed in or about a private home, such as cooks, maids, nannies, nurses, janitors, caretakers, home care aides, and chauffeurs. This broad definition clarifies who falls under the umbrella of domestic service for the purpose of FLSA exemptions.
Section 2, adding FLSA Section 3(z)(3)
Statutory Definition of 'Third-Party Employment'
This provision defines 'third-party employment' as the employment of any worker providing companionship or live-in domestic services by an employer other than the family or household directly receiving the services. This explicitly includes situations where a home care agency employs the caregiver, regardless of whether the caregiver serves multiple families.
Section 3, amending FLSA Section 13(a)(15)
Preservation of Companionship Services Exemption for Third-Party Employment
This provision amends the FLSA to explicitly state that the exemption for companionship services from minimum wage and overtime pay applies even when these services are provided through 'third-party employment' (i.e., by an agency). It also removes the existing language that allowed the Secretary of Labor to define and delimit these terms through regulations, thereby codifying the definitions directly into statute.
Section 4, amending FLSA Section 13(b)(21)
Preservation of Live-in Domestic Services Exemption for Third-Party Employment
This provision amends the FLSA to explicitly state that the exemption for live-in domestic service employees from overtime pay requirements applies even when these services are provided through 'third-party employment' (i.e., by an agency). This ensures that agencies employing live-in domestic workers are not required to pay them overtime.
This clause removes the authority of the Secretary of Labor to define and delimit 'companionship services' through regulations. Instead, the definitions provided in Section 2 of this bill become the statutory standard.
Section 3, amending FLSA Section 13(a)(15)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to shift power from the executive branch (agency rulemaking) to the legislative branch (statutory definition). It's technically phrased but substantively important for future policy changes.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides greater certainty and stability for employers and families by codifying definitions directly into law, making them less susceptible to changes by future administrations or regulatory interpretations. It ensures Congress, not an unelected official, sets the scope of these exemptions.
Case against: Opponents contend that removing the Secretary's regulatory authority makes the law less adaptable to evolving industry practices and worker needs. They argue that agencies are better equipped to issue detailed guidance and update definitions as circumstances change, and that this move rigidifies outdated exemptions.
Estimated impact: Shifts significant definitional power from the Department of Labor to Congress, impacting the flexibility and responsiveness of labor law enforcement regarding home care exemptions.
The definition of 'companionship services' includes general household work, but explicitly states 'provided that such work does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.'
Section 2, adding FLSA Section 3(z)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a technical limitation intended to prevent misclassification of general housekeepers as companionship service providers. It's a common way to delineate boundaries in definitions.
Case for: Proponents argue this limit ensures the exemption is genuinely applied to care-focused roles, preventing abuse where a 'companion' is primarily performing extensive household chores. It provides a measurable standard for compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue that monitoring and enforcing this 20% rule in practice can be difficult for both employers and employees, leading to disputes or underreporting. They might also argue that for many individuals needing care, household tasks are an integral part of their care, and this limit creates an artificial distinction.
Estimated impact: Sets a clear boundary for the types of tasks that can be performed under the companionship services exemption, potentially affecting how care workers allocate their time and how agencies structure their services.