Model bill eliminating the state-level domestic service overtime exemption. Fourteen states already provide protections beyond federal law — none has experienced the fiscal catastrophe opponents predict. This template provides the legislative framework to join them.
The FLSA companionship exemption (29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15)) excludes domestic service workers providing “companionship services” from overtime and minimum wage protections. The 2013 DOL rule narrowed this exemption, but enforcement was suspended in July 2025 (FAB 2025-4) and a proposed rescission was published at 90 FR 28976.
The federal landscape is hostile. The 2013 DOL rule faces rescission. The CMS 80/20 Access Rule (finalized May 2024) faces the same fate. Chevron deference was eliminated by Loper Bright (2024), weakening future agency rulemaking. State legislation is the available path. Unlike federal rules, state overtime protections cannot be rescinded by agency action — they require legislative repeal. The 14 states with existing protections demonstrate that this path works.
These states have eliminated or narrowed the domestic service overtime exemption at the state level. Their HCBS systems have not collapsed. Several rank among the nation’s best.
Nation’s best home care worker conditions. Median wage $19.50/hr (highest nationally). OT after 40 hrs/wk via SEIU 775 contract. 82.7% HCBS share of LTSS (#3 nationally).
→ State profileNation’s first Domestic Worker Bill of Rights. OT after 9 hrs/day or 45 hrs/wk. IHSS: 40 hrs/wk. Median wage $17.28/hr. Largest home care workforce with 700K+ IHSS recipients.
→ State profileRaised Medicaid home care reimbursement to $25/hr. Turnover dropped from ~50% to 4%. The clearest natural experiment in what workforce investment produces.
→ State profileNation’s strongest wage pass-through at 90%. Mean wage $18.54/hr. PHI-ranked #6. OT protections via state wage law. 58K+ PCAs represented by 1199SEIU.
→ State profileCalifornia • Connecticut • Hawaii • Illinois • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Nevada • New Jersey • New York • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Vermont • Washington
These states span blue, purple, and red-leaning legislatures. They include large states (CA, NY) and small ones (VT, HI). Their collective experience provides a robust evidence base that overtime protections are fiscally sustainable.
Adapt this model bill to your state’s labor code structure. Bracketed items [like this] require state-specific customization.
This Act may be cited as the “[State] Home Care Worker Overtime Protection Act of [Year].”
The [Legislature/General Assembly] finds that:
(a) The federal Fair Labor Standards Act exempts domestic service workers providing “companionship services” from overtime protections (29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15)), a classification that traces to the 1974 FLSA amendments and the New Deal–era exclusion of domestic workers.
(b) This exemption affects a workforce that is 85% female and 67% people of color, demographics that reflect the historical exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers from labor protections.
(c) [XX] residents of [State] receive home and community-based services at an average annual cost of $48,000 per person, compared to $128,000 for nursing home care.
(d) The Government Accountability Office found that employer responses to the 2013 DOL overtime rule included hour caps rather than cost absorption, that worker pay did not increase, and that the home care workforce declined 11.6%.
(e) 14 states have enacted overtime protections beyond federal law for home care workers without adverse fiscal impact to their HCBS systems.
(f) Federal enforcement of the 2013 DOL rule has been suspended and a proposed rescission has been published (90 FR 28976), making state-level protections the primary available mechanism.
“Domestic service employee” means any individual employed to provide personal care, homemaker, home health aide, or companion services in or about a private home, including but not limited to: personal care assistants, home health aides, certified nursing assistants providing in-home services, live-in domestic workers, and individuals providing care through self-directed programs [e.g., IRIS, CDCS, IHSS].
“Overtime” means compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of [40] hours in a workweek.
“Companionship services” shall not be construed to exclude any individual from the overtime protections established by this Act, regardless of the federal FLSA companionship exemption classification.
(a) Every domestic service employee shall be entitled to overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of [40] hours in any workweek.
(b) This requirement applies to all domestic service employees regardless of: (1) whether the employee provides “companionship services” as defined under federal law; (2) whether the employee is employed by a third-party agency or directly by the household; (3) whether the employee is a family member of the care recipient.
(c) Live-in domestic service employees shall be entitled to overtime compensation under the same terms as non-live-in employees. [Alternative: Live-in employees shall be entitled to overtime after [44] hours per workweek.]
(a) Every employer of domestic service employees shall maintain accurate records of hours worked by each employee, including start and end times for each work period.
(b) Employers shall not reduce an employee’s regular hourly rate, cap an employee’s hours, or terminate an employee for the purpose of avoiding overtime obligations under this Act.
(c) Managed care organizations and provider agencies receiving Medicaid reimbursement for HCBS shall ensure compliance with this Act for all direct care workers employed or contracted through their programs.
(a) The [State Department of Labor / Workforce Development] shall enforce this Act through its existing wage and hour enforcement mechanisms.
(b) An employee who is denied overtime compensation in violation of this Act may bring a civil action for: (1) unpaid overtime wages; (2) liquidated damages equal to the unpaid amount; (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(c) The statute of limitations for claims under this Act shall be [2/3] years from the date of the violation.
Direct cost to state: Increased Medicaid HCBS reimbursement to cover overtime costs for state-funded home care workers. Estimated at [$ amount] based on current overtime hours and workforce size. This represents approximately [X]% of total HCBS spending.
Offsetting savings: Workforce stabilization reduces turnover costs ($2,600–$5,200 per turnover event). Reduced nursing home admissions from improved HCBS access generate Medicaid savings of approximately $80,000 per diverted admission. The FLSA exemption saves 0.2% of system costs while generating workforce instability that threatens the other 99.8%.
Effective date: This Act shall take effect [180 days / 1 year] after enactment to allow employer compliance preparation.
Key customization points: (1) The overtime threshold — 40 hours/week is standard; some states use daily thresholds (CA: 9 hrs/day). (2) Live-in worker treatment — full coverage is strongest; a 44-hour threshold for live-in workers is a common compromise. (3) Self-directed program coverage — ensure your state’s consumer-directed programs (IRIS, CDCS, etc.) are explicitly included. (4) Enforcement mechanism — align with your state’s existing wage and hour infrastructure. This model bill is provided as a policy resource, not legal advice. Consult with your state’s legislative counsel.
The FLSA companionship exemption saves an estimated $500–700 million annually — roughly 0.2% of the $313 billion HCBS system. A 30% HCBS reduction would add $943 million in nursing home costs. The savings-to-risk ratio is approximately 1:1.5. The exemption saves less than the institutional cost blowback it generates.
The Government Accountability Office studied employer responses to the 2013 DOL overtime rule and found three things: (1) Employers capped hours rather than absorbing costs. Workers didn’t get overtime — they got fewer hours. (2) Worker pay did not increase. The rule change produced no wage gains. (3) The home care workforce declined 11.6%. The instability caused more harm than the exemption prevented. State overtime protections, combined with adequate Medicaid reimbursement rates, can avoid this outcome by ensuring the fiscal infrastructure supports compliance.
Every HCBS participant who can’t get care because there aren’t enough workers becomes a potential $128,000 nursing home resident. People without HCBS access are 5× more likely to enter a nursing home. Overtime protections are a workforce stabilization tool — and a stable workforce is the cheapest way to keep people out of institutions. The question isn’t whether overtime protections cost money. It’s whether the alternative — a collapsing HCBS workforce and rising nursing home admissions — costs more.
Fourteen states have enacted overtime protections beyond federal minimums. None has experienced fiscal collapse. Washington ranks #1 nationally for home care worker conditions (PHI). Massachusetts ranks #6. Nevada’s SB 511 reduced turnover from ~50% to 4%. California’s IHSS program covers 700K+ recipients. These aren’t small experiments — they include the nation’s largest home care systems. The precedent is not theoretical; it is operational.
Detailed profiles for each state with OT protections, with 89 metrics covering wages, workforce demographics, HCBS programs, and policy status.
→ Browse state dataCompanion legislation requiring rate increases reach workers. Pair with the Overtime Protection Act for comprehensive reform.
→ View model billFiscal impact data, both model legislation frameworks, committee testimony resources, and the 14-state precedent analysis.
→ Legislator resourcesFull history and legal analysis of the FLSA companionship exemption, the 2013 DOL rule, and the current federal regulatory landscape.
→ Exemption analysis