2nd Cir.: Reiterates Carrying 20 LB. Bag Does Not Transform Otherwise Non-Compensable Commute Time Into Compensable Time; Applyies “Predominate Benefit Test”
Clarke v. City of New York
Revisiting an issue it has previously ruled on, the 2nd Circuit held that an employee’s required carrying of 20 pounds of materials each day to and from work, during his or her daily commute does not transform otherwise non-compensable travel time into compensable work hours.
“This case falls squarely under the previously decided Singh v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.2008). In Singh, a group of inspectors with the Fire Alarm Inspection Unit of the New York Fire Department brought a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, demanding compensation for their commuting time because they were required by their employer to transport and protect inspection documents. Id. The collective weight of their materials was between 15 and 20 pounds. Id. at 365.
We analyzed the claim in two parts, looking first to whether plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the entire commute and, if not, whether they were entitled to compensation for the additional commuting time that resulted from their transport of these materials. Id. at 366-67. For the first part of the analysis, we applied a “predominant benefit test,” asking whether the employer’s restrictions hindered the employees’ ability to use their commuting time as they otherwise would have. Id. at 369. We determined that the inspectors’ commute was not materially altered by their document transport responsibilities, and thus they were not entitled to compensation for the entire commute. Id. at 370. We then looked to the second part of the test to determine if the additional commuting time that resulted from the transport of the documents was compensable. Id. While noting that the additional time was time spent “necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the City” and thus was compensable, we looked to a three-part test to determine if such compensable time qualified as de minimis. Id. The three factors were: “(1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording additional time; (2) the size of the claim in the aggregate; and (3) whether the claimants performed the work on a regular basis.” Id. at 371. Under this test, we determined that the additional commuting time was de minimis as a matter of law. Id. Thus, none of the plaintiffs’ commuting time was compensable under the FLSA. Id. at 372.
The facts of the case before us are materially indistinguishable from Singh. Plaintiffs in this case, like Singh, are responsible for the transport of a 20-pound bag of equipment. This 20-pound bag, however, does not burden the plaintiffs to such a degree as to make the City the predominant beneficiary of their commute. Their responsibility is limited to transporting the bag; there are no other active work-related duties required during the commute. Transporting a bag in a car trunk, or at plaintiffs’ feet on a train or bus, allows them to use their commuting time as they wish. To the extent that the bag adds time to their commute, we find, just as in Singh, that such time is de minimis and non-compensable.”
Lowe’s To Pay $29.5 Million To Settle Overtime Lawsuit, Central Valley Business Times Reports
The Central Valley Business Times is reporting that Lowe’s has settled an overtime class action accusing the home improvement retailer of forcing thousands of employees to work “off the clock.”
“Home improvement retailer Lowe’s Companies Inc. (NYSE: LOW) has agreed to pay $29.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit that argued it had required “thousands” of hourly workers to toil “off the clock.”
Two former Lowe’s employees alleged that they and thousands of other hourly Lowe’s workers were required to work before and after their normal shifts but were not paid for the extra work…
Earlier, Lowe’s denied all of the claims raised in the lawsuit. The company, contacted Wednesday for comment, said it could not comment directly on the settlement but a spokeswoman said the company believes it is in compliance with all laws and regulations.
The settlement was approved Tuesday by the Los Angeles Superior Court, shortly before the case was to finally go to trial.”
To read the entire story go the the Central Valley Business Times’ website.
E.D.Ark: Punitive Damage Awards Permissible For FLSA Retaliation Claims
Wolfe v. Clear Title, LLC
This case was before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In resolving the Motion in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court also held that punitive damages are permissible to a Plaintiff in an FLSA retaliation case brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 215(a), after acknowledging a split of authority on the issue between Circuit courts and trial level courts within the Eighth Circuit as well.
“The prohibition on retaliation is stated in 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), which makes it unlawful to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under the FLSA. The majority of circuits have held that this provision protects an employee who makes an internal complaint to the employer. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. ., 570 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir.2009). The Eighth Circuit has interpreted the statute to prohibit discrimination against an employee who asserts or threatens to assert FLSA rights. Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d 179, 183 (8th Cir.1975). That interpretation has been criticized as contrary to the plain language of subsection 215(a)(3). See Kasten, 570 F.3d at 840 (holding that the phrase “file any complaint” requires a plaintiff employee to submit some sort of writing). Needless to say, the holding of the Eighth Circuit in Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, Inc., is binding on this Court. Here, the conduct of which Wolfe complains falls within the prohibition of subsection 215(a)(3) as broadly interpreted by the Eighth Circuit.
The courts are divided on the issue of whether the FLSA provides for punitive damages for employees who are subject to retaliation for claiming their rights under that statutory scheme. The Seventh Circuit has held that punitive damages are available in FLSA retaliation cases. Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Ctr., 921 F.2d 108, 112 (7th Cir.1990). The only other circuit to address the issue thus far is the Eleventh Circuit, which held that punitive damages are not available in FLSA retaliation cases. Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208 F.3d 928 (11th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 975, 121 S.Ct. 1609, 149 L.Ed.2d 474 (2001).FN1 The only district courts in the Eighth Circuit to address the issue are the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, and they, too, have reached opposite conclusions. The Eastern District of Missouri has followed the Eleventh Circuit in two cases. Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 520 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1143 (E.D.Mo.2007); Tucker v. Monsanto Co., 2007 WL 1686957 (E.D.Mo. June 8, 2007). Even before the Eleventh Circuit decided Snapp, the Eastern District of Missouri had held, without discussion, that the FLSA does not provide for punitive damages in retaliation cases. Waldermeyer v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 782 F.Supp. 86, 88 (E.D.Mo.1991). On the other hand, the Western District of Missouri followed the Seventh Circuit in one case decided before Snapp, O’Brien v. Dekalb-Clinton Counties Ambulance Dist., 1996 WL 565817, at *6 (W.D.Mo. June 24, 1996) (“In the absence of conflicting interpretation of the amended section 16(b) by another circuit, the court is persuaded to follow the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning and hold that compensatory and punitive damages are available for violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.”). See also Johnston v. Davis Security, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1230-31 (D.Utah 2002) (holding that punitive damages are not recoverable under subsection 216(b)); Lanza v. Sugarland Run Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 97 F.Supp.2d 737, 739-42 (E.D.Va.2000) (same). But see Marrow v. Allstate Sec. & Investigative Services, 167 F.Supp.2d 838, 842-46 (E.D.Pa.2001) (holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the FLSA).
The remedies for violating the FLSA are set out in 29 U.S.C. § 216. Subsection 216(a) provides:
Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior offense under this subsection.
Subsection 216(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.
In Travis, the Seventh Circuit held that this provision authorizes legal relief, “a term commonly understood to include compensatory and punitive damages.” Travis, 921 F.2d at 111. Otherwise, the analysis in Travis was fairly cursory.
In Snapp, the Eleventh Circuit engaged in a lengthy, detailed analysis of the statutory scheme and arrived at a conclusion opposite from that reached in Travis. The court held in Snapp that the term “legal relief” ordinarily would include punitive damages, but interpreting the statute in the light of the principle of ejusdem generis, the court said that the term “legal relief” in subsection 216(b) should be construed to include only compensatory relief, not punitive damages, because the specific items listed in that subsection as “legal or equitable relief” were all designed to make plaintiffs whole. Snapp, 208 F.3d at 934. The court also said that the statute was structured so that punitive sanctions were covered in subsection 216(a), while subsection 216(b) provided remedies for making aggrieved employees whole. Id. at 935.
The most thorough critique of the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Snapp appears to be the critique of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Marrow. There, the court said that application of the maxim of ejusdem generis to subsection 216(b) was inappropriate because the subsection prefaces its list of various forms of relief with the phrase “including without limitation.” Marrow, 167 F.Supp.2d at 844 (emphasis by the Marrow court). “The most sensible reading of that phrase leads to the conclusion that by listing several potential forms of relief, Congress did not mean to exclude others.” Id. Moreover, Marrow reasoned, the purpose of subsection 215(a)(3) is not purely compensatory but is intended to deter employers from engaging in retaliation, so that limiting subsection 216(b) to remedies designed to make the plaintiff whole would not fully implement the intent of Congress. Id. The court in Marrow also found unpersuasive the argument that because Congress provided criminal sanctions in subsection 216(a) it could not have meant to include punitive damages in subsection 216(b). Id.
Although the issue is obviously not free from doubt, the undersigned is persuaded by the reasoning Marrow. Subsection 216(b) was drafted broadly to authorize “such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation….” As Snapp noted:
“Legal relief” is certainly a broad formulation. It would have almost no boundary were it not for the commonly understood decision between the “legal” and “equitable” powers of a court. Where such an expansive term is used, we look for clues within the statute to help us understand the exact nature of the “legal relief” that Congress intended; and we are not disappointed when we look to section 216(b).Snapp, 208 F.3d at 934. The only limitation on the term “legal relief” stated in subsection 216(b) is that it be “appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3)….” The ordinary meaning of “legal relief” as including punitive damages is consistent with that limitation because punitive damages may be appropriate in some cases to effectuate the purposes of subsection 215(a)(3). It is contrary to the legislative intent, as expressed in this broadly worded provision, to exclude punitive damages from the relief authorized by subsection 216(b). The maxim of ejusdem generis is an aid to ascertaining legislative intent and should not be employed to defeat legislative intent, to make general words meaningless, or to reach a conclusion inconsistent with other rules of construction. Donovan v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 666 F.2d 315, 326 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Clark, 646 F.2d 1259, 1265 (8th Cir.1981).
Nor is the undersigned persuaded by the argument in Snapp that punitive sanctions are covered in subsection 216(a), while subsection 216(b) is designed to make plaintiffs whole. In Snapp, the court said, “Congress has already covered punitive damages in section 216(a); and there is simply no reason to carry the punitive element over from section 216(a) to section 216(b), a provision intended to compensate not punish.” Snapp, 208 F.3d at 935. Section 216 has five subsections: subsection 216(a) provides for criminal sanctions; subsection 216(b) provides for civil actions by aggrieved employees; subsection 216(c) provides for civil actions by the Secretary of Labor to recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation on behalf of employees to which those wages are owed; subsection 216(d) states certain narrow exceptions to “liability or punishment” under the FLSA; and subsection 216(e) authorizes civil penalties for child labor violations. Section 216 is not structured so as to have a punishment section and a compensation section; instead, the structure includes a section providing for criminal prosecution by the government prosecuting attorneys, a section providing for civil actions by aggrieved employees, a section providing for civil actions by the Secretary of Labor to recover minimum wages and overtime on behalf of employees, and a section providing for civil penalties for child labor violations. The fact that in subsection 216(a) Congress provided criminal sanctions for willful violations of section 215 supports rather than undercuts the notion that the remedies available under subsection 216(b) include punitive damages, for it shows that Congress regarded willful violations as serious enough to warrant punishment and as a form of misconduct that stands in need of deterrence-which is to say that Congress determined that in some cases punishment would be “appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3).” Moreover, that subsection 216(e) provides for penalties shows that subsection 216(a) was not intended as an exhaustive statement of the punishment available for violations of the FLSA.
In summary, subsection 216(b) was intended to authorize civil actions by aggrieved employees in which the employees could recover any form of legal or equitable relief that might be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of subsection 215(a)(3). In some cases, punitive damages might be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of that subsection. Therefore, punitive damages may in the proper case be recoverable under subsection 216(b).”
Strippers’ Lawsuit Challenges Independent Contractor Status, Boston Globe Reports
As reported in yesterday’s Boston Globe:
“When Noel Van Wagner began working as a stripper in New England clubs about 15 years ago, she typically got a modest wage or no salary at all. But she said she made so much in tips – $300 to $800 per shift – that she didn’t care and didn’t even mind paying club owners $10 or $20 for the right to perform each night.
Like other forms of entertainment, however, strip clubs have lost customers because of the bad economy, and Van Wagner said the place where she works, Ten’s Show Club in Salisbury, has responded by wringing as much money as it can out of each dancer. The club, she says, pays no salary, charges each stripper $40 to $60 per shift to perform, and imposes other fees for lateness or failing to participate in every dance routine – all at a time when tips have plunged.
Yesterday, she and another dancer at the club, along with one who left in March, sued the business in Essex Superior Court for allegedly misclassifying them as “independent contractors,” depriving them of wages and tips. The strippers were emboldened by a recent state court ruling that about 70 strippers who worked at King Arthur’s Lounge in Chelsea were entitled to recover thousands of dollars in damages in a class-action lawsuit that made similar allegations. That complaint was believed to be the first of its kind in Massachusetts.”
To read the entire article go to the Boston Globe’s website.
Although it is a widespread practice nationwide, for adult entertainment nightclubs to treat their performers as independent contractors vs employees, most courts to have considered the issue have found such performers to be employees. Nonetheless the rampant misclassification of strippers and other adult entertainers continues all over the country.
M.D.Tenn.: Opt-in Plaintiffs Not Judicially Estopped From Asserting FLSA Claims Despite Their Failure To Disclose Existence Of FLSA Claims On Respective Bankruptcy Petitions
Crouch v. Guardian Angel Nursing, Inc.
Before the Court was Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify multiple Plaintiffs in this case, brought pursuant to the FLSA, based on their failure to disclose their FLSA claims on their respective bankruptcy petitions filed within the applicable FLSA statute of limitations. Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify and/or For Partial Summary Judgment As To Certain Individual Opt-Ins was denied.
The Court stated:
“As a general statement, the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars a party from (1) asserting a position that is contrary to one that the party has asserted under oath in a prior proceeding, where (2) the prior court adopted the contrary position “either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition.” Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 775 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Teledyne Indus., Inc. v.. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1218 (6th Cir.1990)). The doctrine is used to preserve “the integrity of the courts by preventing a party from abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship.” Browning, 283 F.3d at 776 (quoting Teledyne Indus. Inc., 911 F.2d at 1218). The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by “prevent[ing] parties from playing fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self interest.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir.1999).
The Bankruptcy Code imposes upon bankruptcy debtors an express, affirmative duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims. Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 207-08;
11 U.S .C. § 521(1).
The rationale for … decisions [invoking judicial estoppel to prevent a party who failed to disclose claims in bankruptcy proceedings from asserting that claim after emerging from bankruptcy] is that the integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of their assets. The courts will not permit a debtor to obtain relief from the bankruptcy court by representing that no claims exist and then subsequently to assert those claims for his own benefit in a separate proceeding. The interests of both the creditors, who plan their actions in the bankruptcy proceeding on the basis of information supplied in the disclosure statements, and the bankruptcy court, which must decide whether to approve the plan of reorganization on the same basis, are impaired when the disclosure provided by the debtor is incomplete. Rosenshein v. Kleban, 918 F.Supp. 98, 104 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
Although courts have observed that “[t]he circumstances under which judicial estoppel may appropriately be invoked are probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle,” there are several factors that typically influence the decision whether to apply the doctrine in a particular case. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001) (quoting Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co ., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir.1982)). First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position. Id. “Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create ‘the perception that either the first or the second court was misled.’ ” Id. (quoting Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir.1982)). If the party’s position was not accepted in the prior proceeding, the party’s later inconsistent position does not create a risk of inconsistent court determinations, and, therefore, poses little threat to judicial integrity. Id. at 750-51. A third fact often considered is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would gain an unfair advantage if not estopped. Id. In addition, the Sixth Circuit has held that evidence of an inadvertent omission of a claim in a previous bankruptcy is a reasonable and appropriate factor to consider when determining whether judicial estoppel should be applied. See Eubanks v. CBSK Financial Group, Inc., 385 F.3d 894, 899 (6th Cir.2004).
Considering the foregoing equitable factors, the Court will examine the circumstances of each of the six opt-in plaintiffs who are the subjects of defendants’ motion.
1. Christy Bain. Ms. Bain and her husband filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on April 2, 2008, and failed to list her claim in this case as an asset (Docket Entry No. 261-1). The Bains’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed on August 6, 2008, and remains pending (Docket Entry No. 268-11). On February 18, 2009, Ms. Bain filed a notice of amendment to the schedules to her bankruptcy petition to include her claim in this case (Docket Entry No. 268-12), and the Trustee, Henry Hildebrand, expects to pursue her claim in this case for the sole benefit of her creditors (Docket Entry No. 268, p. 4).
2. Tracy Garrett. Ms. Garrett filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on April 8, 2008, and failed to list her claim in this case as an asset. Her Chapter 13 plan was confirmed on June 17, 2008 (Docket Entry No. 268-1). Ms. Garrett has notified Henry Hildebrand, the Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee, of her claim, and she has amended her bankruptcy schedules accordingly (Docket Entry No. 268-15). Mr. Hildebrand has stated his intent to pursue her claim solely for the benefit of her creditors (Docket Entry No. 268-14).
3. John Sawyer. Mr. Sawyer and his wife filed their voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on April 26, 2007, and failed to list his claim in this case as an asset. He was discharged on August 7, 2007 (Docket Entry No. 261-4). Over a year later, he filed a consent to become a party plaintiff in this action on September 10, 2008. He has since filed amendments to his bankruptcy schedules (Docket Entry No. 268-8), and trustee John McLemore has filed a motion to reopen his case and to set aside the no-asset report (Docket Entry No. 268-9).
4. Christin Johnson. Ms. Johnson filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on October 30, 2007, and failed to list her claim in this case as an asset. By way of declaration, Ms. Johnson has testified that she told the paralegal who helped her fill out her bankruptcy schedules about this case, and the paralegal told her that “if [she] got paid anything [she] would have to let [her] attorney know so that she could advise the bankruptcy court of such award and that the court would decide what amount of money [she] would receive.” (Docket Entry No. 269, para. 3). Ms. Johnson voluntarily moved for dismissal of her bankruptcy petition on December 4, 2007, and the petition was dismissed upon her motion on December 28, 2007 (Docket Entry No. 261-5).
5. Janice Trent. Ms. Trent filed her voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on October 31, 2007, and failed to list her claim in this case on her bankruptcy schedules. She received a discharge on March 13, 2008 (Docket Entry No. 261-6). She has since notified the trustee in her case, Michael Gigandet, of her claim, and he has filed a motion to retrieve and reopen her bankruptcy case, defer costs and set aside her no-asset report (Docket Entry No. 268-4). Mr. Gigandet also has filed his motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this case in order to pursue Ms. Trent’s claim for the benefit of her creditors (Docket Entry No. 264).
6. Alana McEwen. Ms. McEwen filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition on October 14, 2005, and did not disclose her claim in this case in her bankruptcy filings. She was granted a discharge on December 4, 2006 (Docket Entry No. 261-7). From the record it appears that Ms. McEwen started work for defendant On-Call Staffing, Inc. on September 19, 2005, less than one month before filing her bankruptcy petition. It further appears that the amount of overtime pay she claims in this case would have amounted to approximately $185.00 on October 14, 2005, when she filed her bankruptcy petition (Docket Entry No. 268-2). Her bankruptcy trustee, Eva Marie Lemeh, has testified by declaration that the amount of $185.00 would probably have been within the exemptions allowed to Ms. McEwen and, therefore, that she would have been allowed to retain this amount, and, in any event, this amount of money is so small that the cost of reopening her bankruptcy would exceed the benefit to her creditors.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that, in each of the foregoing six cases, for different reasons, the facts to not justify the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel to these plaintiffs’ claims. Although each of these plaintiffs failed to disclose the claim in this lawsuit when filing a petition in bankruptcy, none has gained, or will ultimately gain, an unfair advantage that will undermine the integrity of the judicial process. In the cases of Ms. Bain, Ms. Garrett, Mr. Sawyer, and Ms. Trent, amended schedules have been filed in their bankruptcies and the respective trustees intend to pursue their claims for the benefit of their creditors. Ms. Johnson’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed voluntarily without relief or other benefit to her. Finally, the amount of money at issue in Ms. McEwen’s case was so small that she likely would have been allowed to keep it had it been scheduled. None of these plaintiffs has “gotten away with anything” so as to damage the integrity of the legal process. Moreover, if these plaintiffs are ultimately successful in prosecuting their claims, the application of judicial estoppel here would deliver a windfall to defendants and an injury to innocent creditors in plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that defendants’ motion to disqualify and/or for partial summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 260) should be denied, and that Michael Gigandet’s motion to intervene (Docket Entry No. 264) should be granted.”
S.D.N.Y.: Where FLSA Defendants Admit Plaintiff Worked As Both Independent Contractor And Employee, Money Earned As Independent Contractor Not Included For Inquiry As To Whether Plaintiff Earned $100,000
Magnoni v. Smith & Laquercia, LLP
This case was before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, on several grounds. Summarized below is the Court’s discussion/decision regarding Plaintiff’s earnings and their impact on her status under the so-called “highly compensated employee” exemption.
The Court’s decision relied on the following facts:
Plaintiff’s “employment at S & L, where she worked as a litigation paralegal and handled the normal responsibilities of a paralegal in a litigation law firm, began in 1990. Beginning in 2003, Magnoni was paid a weekly salary with no extra premium for overtime work. S & L paid Magnoni a salary of $64,807.70 in 2005; $67,653.74 in 2006; and $21,846.12 from January 1, 2007 through April 13, 2007. Magnoni alleges that between 2003 and 2005 she did not receive compensatory time or overtime pay from S & L, but admits she received some compensatory time (though no overtime pay) in 2006 and 2007.
Magnoni estimates that she worked approximately six to seven hours of overtime per week between 2001 and 2005, and approximately eight hours of overtime per week in 2006 and 2007. Calculating her overtime on a weekly basis (omitting holidays and days off), Magnoni estimates that she worked about one hour of overtime per week in 2006 and 2007, and “more than that” in 2003, 2004, and 2005. [ ]
In or about November 1997, while employed at S & L, Magnoni formed a business entity named Contessa Legal Process (“Contessa”), which provided process serving and court filing services. S & L was one of Contessa’s many clients. Though Contessa was not incorporated at the time relevant to this action, Magnoni was the sole proprietor of Contessa and S & L made all payments for Contessa’s services directly to Magnoni. For Contessa’s services, S & L paid Magnoni $41,800 in 2005; $49,500 in 2006; and $11,820 through approximately April of 2007. S & L concedes that while Magnoni was S & L’s employee with respect to her paralegal responsibilities, she was an independent contractor with respect to her process
Defendants argue that Magnoni is exempt from coverage by the FLSA because the total annual compensation she received from S & L, when combining her S & L salary and the payments she received from S & L for Contessa’s services, was in excess of $100,000 for 2005 and 2006, and she was projected to receive approximately $125,000 in 2007.”
The Court discussed the applicable law and applied same to the case, noting Defendants CONCEDED that Plaintiff’s work performed for Contessa, was as an independent contractor not an employee.
“Under a regulation issued by the Department of Labor in 2004:
An employee with total annual compensation of at least $100,000 is deemed exempt under section 13(a)(1) of the Act if the employee customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee identified in subparts B, C or D of this part.
29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a). The determination of an employee’s “total annual compensation,” may include “commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses and other nondiscretionary compensation earned during a 52-week period.” Id. § 541.601(b)(1). However, the language of § 541.601 leaves no doubt that it applies only to an employee’s total annual compensation; indeed, under the FLSA, independent contractors are exempt from overtime requirements. See, e.g., Van Asdale v. Apollo Assocs., Ltd., No. 6:08-CV-531-ORL-19KRS, 2009 WL 36419, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 6, 2009) (“Independent contractors are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.”); see also Schwind v. EW & Assocs., Inc., 357 F.Supp.2d 691, 700 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (analyzing whether the plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor because “[t]he overtime provisions of the FLSA … apply only to individuals who are ’employees.’ “). Therefore, Magnoni’s compensation for her independent contractor responsibilities cannot be considered part of her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee under the FLSA.
Defendants concede that Magnoni’s process serving and court filing services on behalf of Contessa were rendered in her capacity as an independent contractor, not in her capacity as an employee of S & L as a paralegal. (See, e.g., Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, dated March 27, 2009 (“Defs.’ Mem.”), at 1 (stating that Magnoni “was both an employee performing legal assistant responsibilities for S & L as well as an independent contractor providing significant process serving and court filing services for S & L and many other law firms”); id. at 2 (describing Magnoni’s total annual compensation to include compensation received “both as an employee and an independent contractor”); id. at 3 (describing Magnoni’s process serving and court filing services as independent from her paralegal responsibilities); id. at 10 (characterizing Magnoni as being compensated as “both S & L’s employee and S & L’s independent contractor”); id. at 15 (describing Magnoni as “operat[ing] a separate business” while at S & L); Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, dated April 29, 2009 (“Defs.’ Reply”), at 4 (describing Magnoni as being compensated as “both an employee and as an independent contractor”).) Thus, any compensation Magnoni received as an independent contractor for the services provided by Contessa was not part of her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee.
Defendants attempt to avoid this outcome by arguing that the Department of Labor’s regulations define “compensation” broadly. However, Defendants do not direct the Court to any case where an “employee[‘s] … total annual compensation,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a), included payment for services rendered as an independent contractor. This absence of authority is unsurprising; because independent contractors are exempt from the FLSA, it would be antithetical to the spirit of the FLSA to consider payment received as an independent contractor to constitute “employee” compensation, particularly given the mandate that exemptions should be narrowly construed against employers. See In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 593 F.Supp.2d 637, 643 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“Due to the remedial nature of the FLSA’s overtime requirement, … exemptions should be ‘narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them and their application limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit.’ ” (quoting Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960)))); see also Henry v. Quicken Loans Inc., No. 2:04-cv-40346, 2009 WL 596180, at *10 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 9, 2009) (“Defendants bear the burden of establishing the applicability of the highly compensated employee exemption because exemptions are to be narrowly construed and limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the FLSA.”)
It would unquestionably violate the terms and spirit of the FLSA to construe an “employee’s” total annual compensation to include payment for separate services provided solely as an independent contractor, given that independent contractors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. While Defendants argue that the Court should not delve into the details of Magnoni’s paralegal duties in order to determine her total annual compensation, Defendants’ concessions leave no doubt that regardless of what Magnoni’s responsibilities were as S & L’s employee, they did not include her process serving and court filing services. Indeed, on the 1099-MISC IRS forms Defendants submitted to the Court, S & L consistently listed “[ ]Magnoni d/b/a/ Contessa Legal Process” as receiving “nonemployee compensation” for which no state or federal income tax was withheld. (Certification of Thomas E. Chase, Esq., dated March 27, 2009 (“Chase Cert.”), Ex. D); see also Thibault v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., Civ. No. 07-0200, 2008 WL 4877158, at *6 (E.D.La. Nov. 10, 2008) (holding that employer’s lack of salary withholdings on 1099-MISC form indicated that plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee).
Because Defendants concede that Magnoni’s Contessa-related process serving and court filing services were conducted in her capacity as an independent contractor, and narrowly construing the application of FLSA exemptions against S & L, compensation for such services cannot be included in the determination of Magnoni’s total annual compensation as S & L’s employee under the FLSA. Magnoni therefore is not exempt as a highly compensated employee under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a), as her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee never exceeded $100,000.”
N.D.Ga.: FLSA Plaintiffs’ Motion For Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction Granted; Plaintiffs Reinstated To Jobs And Statute Of Limitations Tolled Due To Retaliatory Discharge
Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc.
This matter comes was before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs were employed as entertainers at Club Onyx (“Onyx”), an adult entertainment night club allegedly owned and operated by Defendants.
On July 31, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a putative collective action against their employer for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The alleged violations of the FLSA include misclassifying the Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees, failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, and retaliation for filing suit under the statute. On August 11, 2009, some Plaintiffs appear to have been terminated, from their employment with Onyx as a result of filing this action. Plaintiffs Jordan, on August 12, and Clincy, on August 13, were also informed that they could no longer work at Onyx due to their involvement in this suit. On August 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [14]. Among the relief sought in the motion, Plaintiffs requested that they be reinstated to their positions at Onyx and that they and other similarly situated individuals not be adversely affected by participation in this suit. Plaintiffs also requested the tolling of the statute of limitations for the FLSA claims of similarly situated individuals.
The Court first defined the applicable legal standard. “It is settled law in this Circuit that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy[.]” Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir.1985). To obtain such relief, a movant must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the harm suffered by the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242, 1246-47 (11th Cir.2002). Based on the arguments made at the hearing, a review of the record, and the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have succeeded in making such a showing here, and a preliminary injunction will accordingly be issued.”
Finding that Plaintiffs met their burden, the Court stated, “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case. While the FLSA establishes requirements for minimum wage and overtime pay, it also makes it illegal to “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to” the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). While the Plaintiffs may well succeed on the claim that they are employees of Onyx and not independent contractors and thus entitled to a minimum wage and overtime pay, they are substantially likely to prevail on the claim of retaliation. All of the Plaintiffs, with the exception of Hammond, were fired after instituting this suit. At the August 11 meeting at which Parker, Pough, Wells, Leaphart, Sales, and Appling were ostensibly terminated, it was made clear that the reason for their termination was the filing of this suit. Plaintiffs Jordan and Clincy were similarly told that they would not be able to work at Onyx as a result of their participation in the FLSA action. (See Complaint, at 17). This type of action represents a flagrant violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision and therefore Plaintiffs have satisfied the first requirement by demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success.
Plaintiffs have also satisfied the second requirement by demonstrating that irreparable harm will be suffered absent the injunction. In Gresham v. Windrush Partners, LTD, the Court found that “irreparable injury may be presumed from the fact of discrimination and violation of fair housing statutes.” 730 F.2d 1417, 1423 (11th Cir.1984). The Court went on to state that, “when a plaintiff who has standing to bring suit shows a substantial likelihood that a defendant has violated specific fair housing statutes and regulations, that alone, if unrebutted, is sufficient to support an injunction remedying these violations.” Id. In the case at hand, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that a substantial likelihood exists that Defendants have violated the FLSA, specifically its anti-retaliation provision. The FLSA provides that actions may be brought by any employee on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and specifically contemplates “equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation … reinstatement.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA is intended to allow employees to seek vindication of their statutory rights without the fear of reprisal. Retaliatory termination also carries with it the risk that other similarly situated employees will be deterred from protecting their own rights. See Holt v. Continental Group, Inc., 708 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir.1983) (stating retaliatory discharge carries risk of deterring employees from protecting statutory rights). Furthermore, in order to be a party to an FLSA action, an employee must actively join the suit by providing consent in writing. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Irreparable injury may not occur every time a retaliatory discharge takes place, but under the present facts it appears likely that other similarly situated employees of Onyx will be deterred from joining the action as a result of the action taken against Plaintiffs by Onyx. Defendants not only fired Plaintiffs for their participation in this suit, but also informed other entertainers at Onyx that Plaintiffs had been fired because of their participation. (See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, at 9 [14-2] ). Forcing individuals with claims under the FLSA to choose between pursuing their claims or maintaining employment results in irreparable harm. See Allen v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 549 F.Supp.2d 1379 (N.D.Ga.2008) (finding irreparable harm where employees were put in a position of either obtaining a severance package or pursuing their FLSA claims).”
Thus, the Court found that “the harm to Plaintiffs in the absence of an injunction will exceed any harm suffered by Defendants as a result of granting a preliminary injunction. The Court also finds that an injunction in this case will not disserve the public interest. Such equitable relief is specifically contemplated by the FLSA in order to protect the rights of employees. Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied the requirements necessary for the granting of a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiffs seek the tolling of the statute of limitations as part of the preliminary injunction, this Court will also examine the propriety of this request.”
Granting Plaintiffs’ request to equitably toll the statute of limitations, the Court said, ‘Time requirements in lawsuits between private litigants are customarily subject to ‘equitable tolling.’ ‘ Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). However, it is a remedy which should be used sparingly. Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir.1993). Equitable tolling is permitted ‘upon finding an inequitable event that prevented plaintiff’s timely action.’ Id. It is permitted where the plaintiff ‘has been induced … by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.’ Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96.
In the underlying case, individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs have likely been induced to refrain from pursuing claims under the FLSA as a result of the discharge of Plaintiffs and by being informed by management of Onyx that the discharge resulted from participation in this suit. Therefore, proper grounds exist to toll the statute of limitations for a limited period until similarly situated individuals may be made aware that they may pursue FLSA claims without the fear of retaliation or reprisal.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [14] is hereby GRANTED and the following relief is ORDERED:
1. Defendants are to immediately reinstate Plaintiffs Parker, Pough, Wells, Leaphart, Sales, Jordan, Clincy, and Appling;
2. Defendants are prohibited from retaliating or discriminating in any way against Plaintiffs or similarly situated individuals for involvement with or participation in this action or any other pursuit of claims under the FLSA; and
3. the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs is tolled until this Court has ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Certification [12].”
D.Colo.: Individual FLSA Plaintiff’s Acceptance Of Offer Of Judgment (OJ) Requires Entry Of Judgment Thereon; Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Denied As Procedurally Improper
Halpape v. Tiaa-Cref Individual & Institutional Services LLC
This matter was before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, following Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (“OJ”). As discussed below, the Court deemed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss unfounded, correctly determining that the appropriate procedural effect of Plaintiff’s acceptance was/is entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the OJ, not dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2009, claiming that defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Colorado state law. Plaintiff pleadings sought to prosecute this case on behalf of other similarly situated persons employed by defendants during the relevant time period. As authority for this request, the Complaint cites the collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), with respect to his federal cause of action and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 with respect to his state law claims.
On August 14, 2009, defendants served plaintiff with an offer of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68. The terms of the offer included payment of $9,534.54 to plaintiff, an amount “inclusive of all alleged damages … including liquidated damages and interest” covering a period of three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, along with plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff accepted the offer of judgment and filed a notice of acceptance with the Court on August 26, 2009. Defendants then moved to dismiss this action as moot in light of plaintiff’s acceptance of the offer of judgment.
Rule 68(a) provides:
More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 10 days after being served, the opposing party serves writtennotice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a). Thus, entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff is mandatory if, as in this case, the conditions specified in Rule 68(a) are satisfied. Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 390 F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir.2004) (“If the plaintiff accepts the offer … [t]he court generally has no discretion whether or not to enter the judgment. A Rule 68 Offer of Judgment is usually considered self-executing.”). Here, plaintiff timely served written notice of acceptance eight business days after service of the offer of judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). And plaintiff attached the offer of judgment to his notice of acceptance, along with proof of service. Rule 68(a) therefore directs that judgment enter according to the offer of judgment.
Consequently, defendants’ motion to dismiss is unfounded. This is not a case, such as those cited by defendants in their motion, where a plaintiff rejected an offer of judgment that would fully satisfy the plaintiff’s claims. Instead, plaintiff accepted the offer. While it is true that plaintiff’s acceptance removes the controversy between him and defendants, under Rule 68, this case must end by entry of judgment, rather than by an order of dismissal. Cf. Geer v. Challenge Financial Investors Corp., No. 05-1109, 2006 WL 704933, *2 (D.Kan., Mar. 14, 2006) (“Where a defendant makes a Rule 68 offer of judgment and it is accepted, the case is settled and there is no longer a controversy.”).
Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention, GAO Study Says
A report released this week by the United States’ Government Accountability Office (GAO), highlights the issues created when employers improperly misclassify employees as independent contractors and calls for the DOL and IRS to step up enforcement measures to crack down on the abuses.
According to a summary of the report released on the GAO’s website Wednesday, “When employers improperly classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees, those workers do not receive protections and benefits to which they are entitled, and the employers may fail to pay some taxes they would otherwise be required to pay. The Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are to ensure that employers comply with several labor and tax laws related to worker classification. GAO was asked to examine the extent of misclassification; actions DOL and IRS have taken to address misclassification, including the extent to which they collaborate with each other, states, and other agencies; and options that could help address misclassification. To meet its objectives, GAO reviewed DOL, IRS, and other studies on misclassification and DOL and IRS policies and activities related to classification; interviewed officials from these agencies as well as other stakeholders; analyzed data from DOL investigations involving misclassification; and surveyed states.
The national extent of employee misclassification is unknown; however, earlier and more recent, though not as comprehensive, studies suggest that it could be a significant problem with adverse consequences. For example, for tax year 1984, IRS estimated that U.S. employers misclassified a total of 3.4 million employees, resulting in an estimated revenue loss of $1.6 billion (in 1984 dollars). DOL commissioned a study in 2000 that found that 10 percent to 30 percent of firms audited in 9 states misclassified at least some employees. Although employee misclassification itself is not a violation of law, it is often associated with labor and tax law violations. DOL’s detection of misclassification generally results from its investigations of alleged violations of federal labor law, particularly complaints involving nonpayment of overtime or minimum wages. Although outreach to workers could help reduce the incidence of misclassification, DOL’s work in this area is limited, and the agency rarely uses penalties in cases of misclassification. IRS enforces worker classification compliance primarily through examinations of employers but also offers settlements through which eligible employers under examination can reduce taxes they might owe if they maintain proper classification of their workers in the future. IRS provides general information on classification through its publications and fact sheets available on its Web site and targets outreach efforts to tax and payroll professionals, but generally not to workers. IRS faces challenges with these compliance efforts because of resource constraints and limits that the tax law places on IRS’s classification enforcement and education activities. DOL and IRS typically do not exchange the information they collect on misclassification, in part because of certain restrictions in the tax code on IRS’s ability to share tax information with federal agencies. Also, DOL agencies do not share information internally on misclassification. Few states collaborate with DOL to address misclassification, however, IRS and 34 states share information on misclassification-related audits, as permitted under the tax code. Generally, IRS and states have found collaboration to be helpful, although some states believe information sharing practices could be improved. Some states have reported successful collaboration among their own agencies, including through task forces or joint interagency initiatives to detect misclassification. Although these initiatives are relatively recent, state officials told us that they have been effective in uncovering misclassification. GAO identified various options that could help address the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Stakeholders GAO surveyed, including labor and employer groups, did not unanimously support or oppose any of these options. However, some options received more support, including enhancing coordination between federal and state agencies, expanding outreach to workers on classification, and allowing employers to voluntarily enter IRS’s settlement program.”
The GAO recommends that, “[t]o assist in preventing and responding to employee misclassification, and to increase its detection of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other labor law violations, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Administrator to increase the division’s focus on misclassification of employees as independent contractors during targeted investigations.”
A full copy of the GAO report is available here and the summary is available here.
Go here to learn more about employers misclassification of employees vs independant contractors.
M.D.Fla.: Cable Installer Is An Employee Not An Independent Contractor Of Contractor To Cable Company
Parrilla v. Allcom Const. & Installation Services, LLC
This matter came before the Court after a one-day bench trial on the issue of whether Plaintiff, was an independent contractor, and thus exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). In its decision, on this highly litigated issue, the Court held that Plaintiff was an employee, notwithstanding Defendant’s argument otherwise, after reviewing the six factor “economic reality” test.
Initially the Court laid out the oft-used test:
“In determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor, the United States Supreme Court has explained that lower courts must consider the “economic realities” of the parties’ relationship-not the labels or formalities by which the parties characterize their relationship. See generally Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 67 S.Ct. 1473, 91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947); see also Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 130, 67 S.Ct. 1547, 91 L.Ed. 1947 (1947). The Eleventh Circuit has noted that the following factors guide this inquiry:
(1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer’s control as to the manner in which the work is to be performed;
(2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill;
(3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of workers;
(4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
(5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; and
(6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.
Freund v. Hi-Tech Satellite, Inc., 185 F. App’x 782, 783 (11th Cir.2006) (unpublished) [hereinafter “Freund”] (quoting Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1535 (7th Cir.1987)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4).”
The Court then discussed its factual findings as applied to the six factor test:
“A. Nature and Degree of Control Exerted by Defendant Over Plaintiff
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that Defendant exerted significant control over Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant controlled Plaintiff’s daily work schedule, the type of work Plaintiff performed, the amount of time Plaintiff could take off from work, and the manner in which Plaintiff carried out his work.
Defendant determined Plaintiff’s daily work schedule, the resulting number of hours that Plaintiff worked, and the type of jobs that Plaintiff performed. Defendant required Plaintiff to arrive at its place of work at approximately 7:30 a.m. each day; Defendant would then hand Plaintiff a list of work orders to perform for the day. Plaintiff had no control over the work orders that he received, the types of jobs that he could perform or the order in which he carried out the work orders. Plaintiff could not, for instance, perform work orders relating only to Internet service. He had to carry out the work orders that Defendant gave him and in the order that Defendant specified. Furthermore, if a customer requested additional work, or work that differed from what was printed on an existing work order, Plaintiff could not accept the new work unless Bright House and Defendant’s supervisors first approved the new work and Plaintiff received a new work order. Finally, Defendant did not permit Plaintiff to perform cable installation work for any other cable installation provider.
Plaintiff also had little control over when to perform the work orders or the order in which he choose to carry out the work orders. When Bright House customers schedule an appointment with a technician, they are given a two-hour window in which they must wait for the technician to arrive and start performing the work. To ensure that its technicians would be able to meet these windows, Defendant assigned its work orders based largely on geographical proximity. Plaintiff had no control over this assignment process and was required to meet Bright House customers’ time windows. He could not re-schedule customer appointments. Furthermore, Defendant would sometimes instruct Plaintiff to leave a particular job (even if the job were not complete) and go to another job; Plaintiff did not have any meaningful discretion to refuse those instructions.
Defendant also controlled the amount of time, and the manner in which, Plaintiff could take time off. While there was conflicting evidence on this issue, the Court finds that the more credible evidence revealed that Defendant would penalize, or at least threatened to penalize, technicians who frequently requested time off, failed to show up each morning at Defendant’s office, or failed to attend Defendant’s mandatory weekly meetings. Although Defendant appears to have made some allowances for doctors’ appointments, family emergencies and vacations that were planned in advance, it would penalize or terminate technicians who simply decided that, for whatever reason, they did not want to work on a particular day. Indeed, Defendant’s manager testified that its technicians needed to “request” time off.
Defendant also supervised, to a significant extent, the manner in which Plaintiff carried out his work. Defendant provided Plaintiff with specifications (that came mostly from Bright House) on how his work was to be performed. If Bright House informed Defendant that it was not satisfied with the manner in which Plaintiff performed an installation, Defendant would assess Plaintiff with fixed monetary penalties (or “charge-backs”) based on the type of job performed (e.g., the penalty for an unsatisfactory modem installation might be $50, while the penalty on an unsatisfactory television installation might be $25). Defendant automatically deducted these charge-backs from the weekly payments it made to Plaintiff’s company. In some instances, these penalties actually exceeded the total amount Plaintiff was supposed to be paid on a job. Plaintiff had no way of disputing or negotiating the amount of a particular charge-back. Finally, Defendant and Bright House sometimes sent supervisors to “spot-check” or monitor Plaintiff and other technicians after they completed a job or even during a job.
B. Plaintiff’s Opportunity for Profit or Loss Depending on His Managerial Skill
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit or loss did not depend upon his managerial skill. Instead, Plaintiff’s compensation was based simply on the number and type of jobs that Defendant gave him and the quality and pace of Plaintiff’s work.
Because Plaintiff was paid on a piece work basis, Plaintiff’s opportunity for profit or loss was, in a simplistic sense, a function of the number of jobs he could complete in a finite time frame. Excluding charge-backs, the more jobs Plaintiff could quickly complete, the more Plaintiff stood to profit.
As noted, supra, however, Plaintiff’s profit was also a function of the type of work orders that Defendant assigned him (and the amount of charge-backs Plaintiff received). Because the types of jobs that Plaintiff performed each paid differently, notwithstanding the amount of time it took to complete those jobs, Plaintiff would experience days that were more profitable than others simply as a result of the type of work orders that Defendant assigned to him. For example, assuming cable modem installations paid more than television installations, if all the work orders Plaintiff received on a given day were for cable modem installations, Plaintiff would make more on that day, ceteris paribus, than if he had been assigned all television installations. Of course, if cable modem installations took twice as long as television installations, it might be the case that Plaintiff could earn the same amount (or more) by just doing television installations throughout the day. Importantly, though, Plaintiff had no control over the types of work orders that he was given and, in at least some instances, Defendant instructed him to leave particular jobs to perform other potentially less profitable jobs.
Furthermore, Plaintiff was not permitted to install cable services for other cable installation companies. Nor was he permitted to provide additional services for Bright House customers without first obtaining a new work order authorized by both Bright House and Defendant.
No matter how quickly or efficiently Plaintiff worked, Defendant’s charge-backs, the manner in which it assigned jobs, and the directives it gave to sometimes leave jobs prior to their completion obviated Plaintiff’s ability to rely upon his own managerial skill.
C. Plaintiff’s Investment in Equipment or His Employment of Others
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff did not make any significant investment in capital or employ others.
Although Plaintiff provided most of the equipment necessary for performing installations on behalf of Defendant, Plaintiff’s relative investment in that equipment was small. In total, the cost of the hand tools, cable fishing stick, crimper, hammer drill, cable meter, and ladder that Defendant required Plaintiff to purchase amounted to perhaps no more than $1,000 (the cable meter and hammer drill, for instance, cost $500 and $150, respectively). Bright House provided the actual cable, cable modems, digital video recorders and other material inputs required for the installations. While Plaintiff used his own vehicle (a mini-van) to drive to customer’s houses, that vehicle was also for personal use.
*5 Defendant ostensibly gave Plaintiff the option to hire others through his own company. But that option was illusory. With the exception of just one husband and wife team, none of Defendant’s technicians, including Plaintiff, ever utilized or substituted others to carry out the work orders that Defendant assigned.
D. Special Skills Required for Plaintiff’s Services
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff’s work did not require the application of particularly special, or difficult to acquire, skills.
Although Plaintiff’s work involved proper cable wiring, connecting and configuring Internet cable modems, the use of a cable meter, and answering customer’s questions, Defendant’s manager testified that those skills could be acquired in as little as two weeks of on-the-job training. In fact, Defendant often assigned experienced technicians to work with new technicians for a one or two week period in order to get new technicians up to speed. After this short training period, Defendant would start sending the new technicians out into the field.
E. The Degree of Permanence and Duration of Plaintiff’s Working Relationship With Defendant
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that there was a high degree of permanence in Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant. As noted, supra, Plaintiff was not permitted to provide cable installation services for any other cable installation company while we worked for Defendant. Plaintiff was expected to show up at Defendant’s office each morning, six days a week, and was given work orders that typically amounted to a full day’s worth of work. This relationship continued for nearly one and a half years.
F. The Extent to Which Plaintiff’s Work Was Integral to Defendant
The testimony and record evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff’s work was clearly integral to Defendant’s business. In the absence of Plaintiff’s work, and the work of Defendant’s other installation technicians, Defendant would not succeed as an ongoing enterprise. Defendant conceded as much in its trial brief (Doc. 52 at 5) and later at trial.
V. Conclusion
Based on the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that Plaintiff was an employee-and not an exempt independent contractor-for purposes of the FLSA. Taken together, all six of the factors comprising the “economic reality” test overwhelmingly support the conclusion that Plaintiff was an employee who was economically dependent on Defendant.”
Overtime Law Blog 