Employment Law

Subscribe to Employment Law via RSS

On March 26, 2019, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the state Department of Labor’s (the DOL) so-called “13-hour rule” governing payment of home health care aides who work 24-hour shifts. In a closely-watched decision with significant ramifications for the state’s home health industry,  New York’s highest court reversed two 2017 appellate decisions that had overturned the DOL’s  rule and caused substantial uncertainty for home health providers throughout the state.  In short, the New York Court of Appeals confirmed that New York home health care aides may be paid for 13 hours of a 24-hour shift, as long as the aides are given eight hours of sleep time (with five of those being uninterrupted hours) and three hours of meal breaks.

As background, in New York home health aides who work 24-hour shifts have been treated as “live-in employees” for purposes of New York’s Minimum Wage Order regulation (the Wage Order). Under the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order, employers were not required to pay an aide for each hour of a 24-hour shift as long as the aide was given up to eight hours of sleep time (with at least five of those hours uninterrupted) and three hours for meal breaks. The DOL most recently affirmed its interpretation via an opinion letter issued in March 2010, which states in pertinent part that “it is the opinion and policy of this Department that live-in employees must be paid not less than for 13 hours per 24-hour period provided that they are afforded at least eight hours for sleep and actually receive five hours of uninterrupted sleep, and that they are afforded three hours for meals.” This recognition of the 13-hour rule for live-in employees was consistent with positions taken by the DOL in previous decades.
Continue Reading New York Court of Appeals Upholds Thirteen-Hour Rule for Home Health Aide Pay

In Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 15-277 (March 21, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a jury award of almost $2 million that had been awarded in favor of a pharmacist who had a fear of needles and could not comply with Rite Aid’s new policy that required pharmacists to administer immunization injections to customers.

In 2011, in an effort to fill a vaccination void in the healthcare market, Rite Aid imposed a new requirement that all pharmacists must administer immunizations.  Rite Aid revised its job description, requiring pharmacists to obtain valid immunization certificates and establishing immunizations as a part of the pharmacist’s essential job functions.

The plaintiff had worked for Rite Aid for 34 years.  After receiving notice of the new requirement, he presented Rite Aid with a note from his treating physician stating that he suffered from trypanophobia, a fear of needles.  His condition caused him to become lightheaded, pale, and feeling that he might faint.  The physician stated that the plaintiff could not safely administer an injection since the likelihood that he would faint would be unsafe for both the patient and the plaintiff.  Due to his trypanophobia, the plaintiff requested that Rite Aid provide him with a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  A short time later, Rite Aid terminated his employment.
Continue Reading Appeals Court Reverses ADA Jury Verdict for Pharmacist with Fear of Needles