or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The contention that the exception does not apply to domestic services employees who are not employed directly by an individual in need of care, or his or her family has been rejected by the courts that have been confronted with the same question. See Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1299 n. 2 (N.D.Okla.1998) (rejecting, as inconsistent with 29 C.F.R. § 652.109(a), the plaintiffs’ argument that the private home exception did not apply because they were employed by the agency and not the individual clients); Madison v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., 39 F.Supp.2d 542, 545 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>). We are persuaded that the secretary’s
holding that pursuant to 29 cfr  552109 although the plaintiffs are employed by rhd rather than the individuals they serve that by itself does not exclude them from the exemption holding that punitive damages are not duplicative since they are designed to punish rather than to compensate holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding that although the matter should have been initiated by a complaint rather than a motion the debtor was not prejudiced by proceeding as a contested matter