In recent years, more workers have filed claims for unpaid overtime based on occupations that are potentially subject to specialized exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some of this litigation involves the "companionship" exemption and whether it applies to persons who also provide medical or housekeeping care to the client. Other suits allege that the employer improperly claimed a FLSA exemption for childcare and housekeeping workers who reside in the residence of their employer. Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Georgia) concluded that the exemption only applies to workers who actually live full-time with their employers.

In Blanco v. Samuel, the plaintiff was one of a team of nannies who cared for her employer’s children. While she had her own apartment and would typically leave her employer’s residence between shifts, she did sleep there during an overnight shift and kept some personal belongings in the house. Her employer claimed that this fell within the definition of residence under an exemption of title 29 of the U.S. Code. The district court agreed, and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her claim.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the lower court, reversing the dismissal and remanding the claim. The court adopted a plain language meaning to the residence requirement, noting that the plaintiff did not spend her leisure time at the home, and only slept there when working. As such, she did not "reside" at her employer’s home and qualified for overtime pay.

When reviewing claims for FLSA overtime, federal courts narrowly interpret statutory exemptions, placing the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate each element of the relevant exemption. Unless a worker clearly meets each requirement of the statutory exception, a prudent employer should classify the employee as non-exempt and take a different approach towards minimizing overtime exposure.

[View source.]