Portal to Portal Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 254. A member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed that since the “Pennsylvania General Assembly has not in any way adopted the federal Portal to Portal Act,” provisions of the Portal to Portal Act might be less compatible with the PMWA than other portions of the FLSA. Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 616 Pa. 38, 46 A.3d 643, 648 (2012) (McCaffery, J. dissenting); see also Bonds v. GMS Mine Repair & Maint., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1217, 2015 WL 5602607, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2015) (quoting Caiarelli and concluding that the Portal to Portal Act’s additions to the FLSA do not apply to the PMWA). 6 . Where the two acts diverge, however, courts do not defer to federal law to interpret state law. See, e.g., Bayada Nurses, Inc., 8 A.3d at 882-83 (<HOLDING>); see also Foster v. Kraft Foods Glob., Inc.,
holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes holding that the exemption right under  522 is a matter of federal law as to applicability even though the amount and items of exemption are defined and set forth in existing state statutes holding that federal regulations pertaining to the domestic service exemption to the flsa did not apply to the analogous but narrower pmwa exemption and that pennsylvania may interpret its law in a manner more beneficial to employees than federal law holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3