Sixth Circuit Upholds DOL Home Care Overtime Rule Post-Loper Bright
Summary
The Sixth Circuit in DOL v. Americare Healthcare Services upheld the DOL's 2013 rule requiring third-party home care agencies to pay overtime to live-in caregivers, rejecting arguments that Loper Bright invalidated the regulation. The court found Congress expressly delegated authority to the DOL to define FLSA companionship exemptions, so the rule remains valid. The decision comes as the DOL has separately proposed rescinding the same rule effective July 2025.
What changed
The Sixth Circuit upheld the DOL's 2013 regulation narrowing the Companionship Services and Live-In Domestic Services exemptions for third-party employers. The court held that Loper Bright did not disturb regulations issued pursuant to Congress's express delegation of interpretive authority to the DOL. Home care agencies that are third-party employers remain required to pay overtime to live-in caregivers and caregivers caring for family members under this ruling.
Home care providers operating in Sixth Circuit states should continue complying with the overtime requirement for the period before any DOL rollback takes effect. The DOL's separate proposed rule to rescind the 2013 Rule would apply only prospectively, leaving liability intact for prior conduct. Employers should monitor both the proposed rulemaking and any similar challenges in other circuits.
What to do next
- Monitor for updates on the DOL's separate proposed rule to rescind the 2013 overtime requirement
Archived snapshot
Apr 16, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
April 15, 2026
Express Delegation Still Means What It Says: Sixth Circuit Upholds DOL Home Care Rule After Loper Bright
Zachary Busey, Dean Shauger, Kayla Wunderlich Baker Donelson + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed
In the wake of Loper Bright, many employers have questioned whether long-standing federal regulations remain on solid footing. On April 1, 2026, in DOL v. Americare Healthcare Services, ** the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit provided a clear answer – yes, where Congress has expressly delegated authority to an agency. In a decision with immediate implications for home care providers, the Sixth Circuit upheld a Department of Labor (DOL) regulation requiring third-party home care agencies to pay overtime, even for live-in caregivers caring for their own family members.
The FLSA Baseline – and Its Carveouts
As a general rule, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay minimum wage and overtime. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. The statute also includes several exemptions, including:
- The Companionship Services Exemption, which applies to employees providing companionship services to individuals unable to care for themselves. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15).
- The Live-In Domestic Services Exemption, which applies to employees who reside in the household where they are employed. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(21). Critically, Congress expressly delegated authority to the DOL to define the scope of these exemptions – a point that proved decisive in the Sixth Circuit's analysis.
The 2013 Rule: Exemptions Narrowed for Third-Party Employers
In 2013, the DOL revised its regulations interpreting the Companionship Services and Live-In exemptions to exclude third-party employers, such as home care agencies (the 2013 Rule). Under this rule, third-party providers must pay overtime – even where the caregiver is a live-in employee or is caring for a family member.
An Ohio-based home care provider challenged the 2013 Rule, arguing that, after Loper Bright, the DOL's interpretation could no longer stand.
Loper Bright Does Not Undo Express Delegation
The Sixth Circuit squarely rejected that argument. The court emphasized that Loper Bright did not disturb the long-standing principle that Congress may expressly delegate authority to an agency, nor did it call into question regulations issued pursuant to such a delegation.
To the contrary, the court noted that Loper Bright itself identified the Companionship Services Exemption as an example of express statutory delegation. Because the FLSA clearly assigns interpretive authority to the DOL, the 2013 Rule remains valid – regardless of whether reasonable minds might disagree with the agency's policy choice.
A Strange Backdrop: DOL Seeks to Roll Back the Rule It Defended
The decision comes against an unusual regulatory backdrop. In July 2025, the DOL issued a proposed rule that would rescind the 2013 Rule. At oral argument, the Sixth Circuit questioned why the agency continued to prosecute the case while proposing to make the employer's conduct lawful going forward.
The DOL responded that any rollback would not apply retroactively and that the employer's conduct was unlawful during the relevant period. The agency did not explain its change in position, though its proposed rule states that "the Department is concerned that the 2013 regulations do not reflect the best interpretation of the FLSA and discourage essential companionship services by making these services more expensive."
Notably, on July 25, 2025, the DOL also announced that it was suspending enforcement of the 2013 Rule. Whether the Sixth Circuit's decision will affect the final fate of the rule remains unclear.
What This Means for Employers in the Sixth Circuit
For third-party home care providers operating in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, the message is straightforward:
- Express delegation survives Loper Bright.
- Courts will continue to uphold DOL regulations issued pursuant to clear statutory authority – even where the agency later changes its interpretation.
- Employers should not assume that Loper Bright undermines existing DOL rules grounded in express delegation under the FLSA. Other courts have reached the same conclusion. Earlier this year, the Third Circuit likewise upheld the 2013 Rule on express-delegation grounds, and additional circuits may follow.
Until the regulatory landscape definitively changes, any modification to wage-and-hour practices should be made cautiously and in consultation with HR and legal counsel.
Latest Posts
- Express Delegation Still Means What It Says: Sixth Circuit Upholds DOL Home Care Rule After Loper Bright
- Medico-Legal Funding: Inflated Medical Bills and Defense Strategies in Personal Injury Litigation
- The Defense Production Act: Rebuilding U.S. Surge Capacity and What Investors in Projects Need to Know
- CDFI Fund Update: FY 2027 Budget Renews Pressure, but CDFIs Should Stay the Course
- Trump Overhauls Section 232 Tariffs: What Metals and Pharmaceutical Importers Need to Know See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.
©
Baker Donelson
Written by:
Baker Donelson Contact + Follow Zachary Busey + Follow Dean Shauger + Follow Kayla Wunderlich + Follow more less
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
Appellate Courts + Follow Caregivers + Follow Department of Labor (DOL) + Follow Employer Responsibilities + Follow Employment Litigation + Follow Exempt-Employees + Follow Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) + Follow Home Health Agencies + Follow Minimum Wage + Follow Over-Time + Follow Proposed Rules + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Wage and Hour + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Health + Follow Labor & Employment + Follow more less
Baker Donelson on:
"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for JD Supra Healthcare
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Baker Donelson.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Healthcare publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.