Whether a county, which acts as an agent of the state in administering a state social welfare program, is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity from a lawsuit challenging a state policy over which the county had no control

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondents, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated home care workers in the State of California’s In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) program, sued Petitioner the County of Los Angeles (“County”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for payment of overtime wages. The State of California is responsible for paying overtime wages to eligible home care workers in the IHSS program. The Ninth Circuit recognized that the County had no control over the action which led to potential liability here: the State of California’s delayed implementation of a new Department of Labor (“DOL”) rule. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit held that the County was not entitled to claim state sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit also held that the County could be liable for the non-payment of overtime wages during a mandatory, non-enforcement period adopted by the DOL. The questions presented are: (1) Whether a county, which acts as an agent of the state in administering a state social welfare program, is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity from a lawsuit challenging a state policy over which the county had no control; and (2) Whether the DOLs non-enforcement policy bars private rights of action for alleged violations during the agency’s non-enforcement period.