Skip to main content


Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 607 Pa. 527 (November 17, 2010).

Judges: MADAME JUSTICE TODD. CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, GREENSPAN, JJ. Former Justice Greenspan did not participate in the decision of this case. Mr. Chief Justice Castille and Messrs. Justice Saylor, Eakin, Baer and McCaffery join the opinion.


A provision of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (the “Act”) exempts from the statute’s minimum wage and overtime requirements employment for “[d]omestic services in or about the private home of the employer.” 43 P.S. § 333.105(a)(2). A regulation promulgated by Appellee, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (the “Department”), defines “domestic services” as “[w]ork in or about a private dwelling for an employer in his capacity as a householder, as distinguished from work in or about a private dwelling for such employer in the employer’s pursuit of a trade, occupation, profession, enterprise or vocation.” 34 Pa. Code § 231.1(b). In this direct appeal, we consider initially the doctrines of ripeness and exhaustion of administrative remedies to determine whether this matter is justiciable. We then address the issues of whether the Department’s application of its regulation is reasonable and whether a third-party agency employer may benefit from the “domestic services” exemption from the Act’s overtime requirements. For the reasons that follow, we determine this matter is justiciable, uphold the Department’s regulation, and conclude that a third-party agency employer does not qualify for the domestic services exemption, and, therefore, must pay its employees overtime. Thus, we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.