Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

News Briefs

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 02, 2013

New Federal Rule Likely To Raise Costs for Home Healthcare Franchises in 2015

Effective on Jan. 1, 2015, minimum wage and overtime rules will apply to the nearly 2 million home healthcare workers in the U.S., according to new rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in September under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These low-wage “companions” or “domestic workers” provide services in the homes of their clients, rather than in institutional settings.

With home healthcare one of the fastest-growing segments of the franchise industry, the International Franchise Association (IFA) denounced the rules as imposing “costly, burdensome and unnecessary regulations at a time when an increasing number of seniors are enjoying in-home companion care as a cost-effective alternative to traditional care.”

According to IFA, at least 20 franchise systems and an estimated 4,000 individual franchises are operating today.

Currently, home companions are regulated as if they are babysitters, thus exempt from FLSA wage and overtime rules that have been in effect since 1974. But advocates for home healthcare workers said that the increase in the duties of these workers, as well as the rapid growth in demand to serve an aging population, made it appropriate to give them the same protections as workers doing similar jobs in nursing homes and hospitals.

Overtime is potentially a major issue, as an estimated 10% of clients receive round-the-clock, live-in service, and about 25% receive more than 40 hours per week of support, noted IFA. “As adopted, this single decision will force caregivers into an unregulated 'underground' market, as clients will no longer be able to pay for live-in care through a regulated agency,” predicted IFA President and CEO Steve Caldeira.


New York City 16-Oz. Sugary Drink Ban Thwarted

On July 30, a Manhattan Appellate court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling blocking New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. The appellate judges concluded that the executive branch lacked the authority to unilaterally adopt a policy, and that it required the consent of the City Council.

The proposed ban ' an effort to fight obesity ' had been widely opposed by franchised businesses in the city, and the National Restaurant Association was one of the plaintiffs. The rule was due to go into effect in March 2013, but it was halted by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling Jr., and upheld by the appellate court.

“We declare the regulation to be invalid, as violative of the principle of separation of powers,” Justice Dianne Renwick of the Appellate Division, First Department, wrote for the panel in New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 653584/12.

The Bloomberg administration said it will appeal to the Court of Appeals. “We firmly disagree” with the decision, said Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo in a statement released to the media, adding “there is broad precedent for the Board of Health to adopt significant measures to protect New Yorkers' public health.”

In the ruling, Renwick looked to the state Court of Appeals' 1987 opinion in, Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1. The Boreali court held that rules promulgated by the state Public Health Council about smoking in most public places were invalid. The drink ban also was criticized for “selective restriction” ' that is, its application only to sales of large-size drinks in some types of retail establishments. The fact that bans had not passed either the state legislature nor the New York City Council also factored into the court's reasoning. “This is a strong indication that the legislature remains unsure of how best to approach the issue of excessive sugary beverage consumption,” Renwick wrote.

New Federal Rule Likely To Raise Costs for Home Healthcare Franchises in 2015

Effective on Jan. 1, 2015, minimum wage and overtime rules will apply to the nearly 2 million home healthcare workers in the U.S., according to new rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in September under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These low-wage “companions” or “domestic workers” provide services in the homes of their clients, rather than in institutional settings.

With home healthcare one of the fastest-growing segments of the franchise industry, the International Franchise Association (IFA) denounced the rules as imposing “costly, burdensome and unnecessary regulations at a time when an increasing number of seniors are enjoying in-home companion care as a cost-effective alternative to traditional care.”

According to IFA, at least 20 franchise systems and an estimated 4,000 individual franchises are operating today.

Currently, home companions are regulated as if they are babysitters, thus exempt from FLSA wage and overtime rules that have been in effect since 1974. But advocates for home healthcare workers said that the increase in the duties of these workers, as well as the rapid growth in demand to serve an aging population, made it appropriate to give them the same protections as workers doing similar jobs in nursing homes and hospitals.

Overtime is potentially a major issue, as an estimated 10% of clients receive round-the-clock, live-in service, and about 25% receive more than 40 hours per week of support, noted IFA. “As adopted, this single decision will force caregivers into an unregulated 'underground' market, as clients will no longer be able to pay for live-in care through a regulated agency,” predicted IFA President and CEO Steve Caldeira.


New York City 16-Oz. Sugary Drink Ban Thwarted

On July 30, a Manhattan Appellate court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling blocking New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's restrictions on the sale of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. The appellate judges concluded that the executive branch lacked the authority to unilaterally adopt a policy, and that it required the consent of the City Council.

The proposed ban ' an effort to fight obesity ' had been widely opposed by franchised businesses in the city, and the National Restaurant Association was one of the plaintiffs. The rule was due to go into effect in March 2013, but it was halted by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling Jr., and upheld by the appellate court.

“We declare the regulation to be invalid, as violative of the principle of separation of powers,” Justice Dianne Renwick of the Appellate Division, First Department, wrote for the panel in New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 653584/12.

The Bloomberg administration said it will appeal to the Court of Appeals. “We firmly disagree” with the decision, said Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo in a statement released to the media, adding “there is broad precedent for the Board of Health to adopt significant measures to protect New Yorkers' public health.”

In the ruling, Renwick looked to the state Court of Appeals' 1987 opinion in, Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1. The Boreali court held that rules promulgated by the state Public Health Council about smoking in most public places were invalid. The drink ban also was criticized for “selective restriction” ' that is, its application only to sales of large-size drinks in some types of retail establishments. The fact that bans had not passed either the state legislature nor the New York City Council also factored into the court's reasoning. “This is a strong indication that the legislature remains unsure of how best to approach the issue of excessive sugary beverage consumption,” Renwick wrote.

Read These Next
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using? Image

What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.

COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions Image

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.

Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support Image

The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.

Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients Image

As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.

The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies Image

Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.