This court has previously noted the extraordinary breadth of the FLSA’s definitions. E.g., Fegley, 19 F.3d at 1132 n. 5. Despite the wide swath these definitions cut, the FLSA does not apply to everyone who has a job. Congress expressly excludes from FLSA coverage “any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary).” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15) (emphasis added). The parties devoted the majority of their appellate briefs and oral arguments to the close question of whether the Bureau “employs” Ms. Salyer. See, e.g., Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1467-70 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The district court, after a careful
holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice holding that public social service agencies were employers of inhome chore workers who served disabled public assistance recipients holding that under the fmla an employer includes both individuals and public agencies and therefore also includes individuals in public agencies recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public