Home » Coverage (Page 3)
Category Archives: Coverage
S.D.N.Y.: Members Of Restaurant Co-op Are Akin To Partners And Not Employees Within Meaning Of FLSA
Godoy v. Restaurant Opportunity Center of New York, Inc.
Plaintiffs, brought suit against Defendants Restaurant Opportunity Center of New York, Inc. (“ROC-NY”), 417 Restaurant LLC a/k/a ROC N.Y. Restaurant LLC d/b/a Colors, ROC-NY Worker Owner Restaurant, LLC a/k/a RWOR, Saru Jayaraman, and Grace Gilbert, as President of ROC-NY (“Defendants”), alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 28 U.S.C. § 216(b), and New York State Labor Law. Plaintiffs, former restaurant workers and members of Defendant not-for-profit corporation ROC-NY, alleged that Defendants broke their agreement with Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs would gain equity in and employment at the “worker-owned” restaurant they helped ROC-NY to create in exchange for the hundreds of hours that Plaintiffs contributed to that effort. Plaintiffs sought through this action damages and injunctive relief in the form of their promised shareholder status in and employment at the restaurant, now known as “Colors,” back pay for the work they performed on behalf of ROC-NY during the period of 2002-2005 and the wages they did not earn because they were not employed at the restaurant once it opened, and costs and attorneys’ fees in prosecuting this action. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In granting Defendants’ Motion, the Court discussed the unique situation under which the Plaintiffs worked for and with the co-op, applying the various economic reality tests to determine that they were not “employed” by Defendants, and therefore dismissing the Complaint.
Several Plaintiffs became members of Defendant ROC-NY in August 2002. Several months later, ROC-NY began seeking grants to launch what was described as a “cooperatively owned restaurant” which would be run by-workers displaced after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and a “Cooperative Committee” of ROC-NY was created to direct that effort. Several Plaintiffs were initial members of the Cooperative Committee. Other Plaintiffs joined ROC-NY and the Cooperative Committee in around 2003, and one Plaintiff joined in around 2004. All of the Plaintiffs joined the Cooperative Committee when they joined ROC-NY, and many served on the Committee’s Board of Directors at various times.
Significantly, the Court noted, “[ha]ving surveyed the various economic reality tests and factors applied by the courts, this Court finds lacking any standard applicable to the question presented by the particular facts of this case-that is, whether workers laboring for and together with a not-for-profit corporation to develop a business that they would co-own are employees of that corporation for purposes of the FLSA. Instead, the Court finds company with the Tenth Circuit in its decision in Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257 (10th Cir.1987). In that case, the Circuit considered whether a general partner of an accounting firm was an “employee” of that firm for purposes of a FLSA action. After reviewing the traditional “economic reality” factors employed by the courts, the Court noted the “absence … of any coherent standard of ‘economic reality’ for supposed application to partners” in a business, and concluded that “the specific independent contractor/employee factors … are largely useless in a general partnership context.” Id. at 271-72. The Court explained that while “[t]he focal point in deciding whether an individual is an employee” under the “economic realities” jurisprudence, “is whether the individual is economically dependent on the business to which he renders service … or is, as a matter of economic fact, in business for himself,”
Consideration of the factors used by the Tenth Circuit in Wheeler to assess the economic reality presented by a partnership supports the absence of an employer-employee relationship in this instance. See Wheeler, 825 F.2d at 274-75. Like partners at a firm. Plaintiffs, as putative co-owners of the business they were working to create, “assume[d] the risks of loss and liabilities” of the venture, and had a real opportunity to share in its profits upon success. Plaintiffs’ hours of “sweat-equity” represented their “capital” contribution to the business, and one that “would earn [Plaintiffs] equity in the RWOR” as “sweat equity converted to cash equivalent in stock.” While Plaintiffs’ “right to share in management” once the restaurant opened is not specifically alleged in the Complaint, the Court notes that Plaintiffs were members of the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Committee tasked with the management of the restaurant’s planning and development phase. Taken together, the balance of these “economic realities” weighs against the existence of an employment relationship in this case. As Plaintiffs and Defendants were at all relevant times putative co-owners of the restaurant they were working to create, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were not, as a matter of economic reality, the employees of Defendants. As such. Plaintiffs have no claims under the FLSA, see Alamo, 471 U.S. at 296-97, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss these claims is GRANTED.”
This unfortunate result, seems unavoidable given the fact that the Plaintiffs were technically “owners” of the business for which they worked, and it is likely that the decision will have limited application in future cases.
9th Cir.: FLSA Applicable To Retail Business Located On An Indian Reservation, Owned By Indian Tribal Members
Solis v. Matheson
Appellant Paul Matheson is a member of the Puyallup Tribe. The Puyallup Tribe is a Pacific Northwest Indian tribe that has a reservation in the State of Washington. Paul Matheson owns and operates a retail store known as Baby Zack’s Smoke Shop (“Baby Zack’s”), located on trust land within the Puyallup Indian Reservation. Appellant Baby Zack’s sells tobacco products and sundries to Indians and non-Indians. Some of the goods sold by Baby Zack’s have been shipped in from locations outside the State of Washington. Baby Zack’s accepts credit card and debit card payments and uses electronic or telephonic means of communication to banks and credit card companies located outside of the State of Washington. Baby Zack’s regularly employs both Indian and non-Indian workers.
In 2004 and 2005, Baby Zack’s had an annual gross volume of sales of not less than $500,000. Paul and Nick Matheson are employers within the meaning of the FLSA. If the FLSA applies, the amount of wages due to employees and former employees is $31,354.87.
Although they acknowledged that they were enterprises otherwise covered by the FLSA, Defendants argued that they were exempt from the FLSA, because they qualify for either or both the intramural affairs exception set forth in Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 1115-16 (9th Cir.1985), or the treaty rights exception. The Court disagreed holding:
“In this opinion we resolve whether the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) apply to a retail business located on an Indian reservation and owned by Indian tribal members. We also resolve whether Appellee the Secretary of Labor for the United States Department of Labor (the “Secretary”) has the authority to enter the Indian reservation to inspect the books of that business… We conclude that the overtime requirements of the FLSA apply to the retail business at issue in this case. Because the FLSA applies to the retail business, we conclude that the Secretary had the authority to enter the Indian reservation to audit the books of the business, as she would regularly do with respect to any private business. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court on these two issues.”
In a separate issue, the Court found that the District Court’s appointment of a receiver due to Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages was premature and reversed on that issue, stating, “[w]e conclude that the district court’s decision with respect to the automatic appointment of a receiver over the retail business in the event the overtime payments were not made was premature. We therefore vacate that portion of the judgment.”
S.D.Fla.: Issue Of FLSA Coverage Not Jurisdictional; Simply An Element Of The Claim
Rodriguez v. Diego’s Restaurant, Inc.
The parties reached a settlement and on August 7, 2008, the Court conducted a fairness hearing pursuant to Lynn Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1982). On the same day, the Court issued an Order dismissing the case with prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement until October 15, 2008. The defendants did not make the scheduled payment and on September 19, 2008, the plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment Against Defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, despite the fact that they had stipulated on multiple occasions that FLSA jurisdiction had been met.
The Court acknowledged that the Eleventh Circuit has yet to address the issue head on of whether FLSA coverage is jurisdictional, stating, “[t]he issue of whether individual or enterprise coverage is jurisdictional or only a required element of the plaintiff’s claim has not been resolved in this Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit in Turcios v. Delicias Hispanas Corp., 275 Fed. Appx. 879, *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) found that “the question of enterprise coverage was intertwined with the merits of an FLSA claim.” In Turcios, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The plaintiff appealed the ruling. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court holding that the lower court should have applied the Rule 56 summary judgment standard. Id. at *1. The Eleventh Circuit observed that the same operative facts determine whether the plaintiff can recover under the FLSA and the scope of the FLSA’s coverage. “In short, the sections of the FLSA that provide the substantive relief, § § 206 and 207, are interwined with and dependent on the section of the FLSA that defines the scope of the FLSA, § 203.” Id. at 2. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the First Circuit in Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.2007) concluded that enterprise coverage was not jurisdictional under the FLSA in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). Id. at * 2 n. 5. Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit declined to decide the issue in Turcios because the parties did not dispute the jurisdictional nature of enterprise coverage. Id.”
After discussing the case law related to the issue from around the country, the Court concluded, “[i]n sum, the Court finds that the individual or enterprise coverage prongs are elements of the plaintiff’s claim and are not jurisdictional. Because these are elements of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant was required to raise any attacks on these elements in a timely manner. “[T]he objection that a complaint ‘fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,’ Rule 12(b)(6), may not be asserted post trial.” Here, the instant case settled on the eve of the calendar call. The Court held a fairness hearing, approved the settlement and dismissed the case on August 7, 2008. Fifty-five days after the case was dismissed, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss. Under these facts, any motion for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is untimely. Additionally, the defendants waived the right to assert any affirmative defenses to individual or enterprise coverage by stipulating that these elements were met. See Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.2007) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s decision to hold the defendants to their stipulation that the $500,000 gross annual sales element had been met).”
In so doing, the Court joined the majority of Courts who have decided the issue. While the question is still one that is open in some courts, more and more courts seem to be adopting the majority view that FLSA coverage is non-jurisdictional in nature.
S.D.Fla.: Telephone Calls, Faxes, Mailings And Other Regular Communications With Out Of State Vendors And Customers Does Not Constitute “Engaging In Interstate Commerce”
Dent v. Giaimo
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Starting on July 8, 2006, plaintiff worked as a medical assistant for defendant. Her duties included checking patients in and out of their appointments, verifying insurance coverage, answering the phone, filing, faxing and other clerical duties. She alleges that she often worked over forty hours per week. She also alleges that defendant’s annual gross sales volume exceeds $500,000.00. At issue in this case is whether defendant engaged in interstate commerce.
In another bewildering decision, the District Courts of Florida continue to narrow the scope of the FLSA’s coverage, contra to the Department of Labor’s enforcement policies and virtually all other Circuit and District Courts.
Discussing Enterprise Coverage first, the Court stated:
“As an initial matter, plaintiff cites cases that hold that the second prong of the enterprise coverage test is determinative. She argues that since defendant conceded that his business grossed at least $500,000 per year that this Court should simply deny the motion in its entirety and rely exclusively on the second prong of the test. This Court disagrees. Simply because some judges have recognized that business with annual gross sales volume exceeding $500,000 often also engage in interstate commerce, does not mean that all such business are engaged in interstate commerce. The statute requires that a business meet both prongs of the test before jurisdiction rests in the federal courts.
This Court now turns to the first prong of the test and holds that plaintiff failed to show that defendant had two or more employees regularly and recurrently engaged in commerce, or had two or more employees regularly and recurrently handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were moved in or produced for commerce by any person. Plaintiff averred that she was engaged in interstate commerce through long distance phone calls and facsimiles as well as processing patient’s credit card payments. She says that while employed, defendant and an office manager, Ms. Erb, were also employed. Plaintiff, however, did not state that defendant or Ms. Erb engaged in the same type of alleged interstate activity. Plaintiff then states that the company periodically hired other full time employees who engaged in the same activity as plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, failed to provide the frequency with which defendant employed others to engage in the same type of office work that plaintiff alleges she preformed. Moreover, plaintiff failed to allege what percentage of that employee’s time was spent performing the alleged interstate activity.”
Next the Court turned to the issue of whether the Plaintiff was subject to the Individual Coverage of the FLSA:
“In support of a possible claim for individual coverage, plaintiff averred that about 70% of defendant’s patients are not Florida residents, that she regularly used the telephone, internet and facsimile machine to contact out of state insurance companies, and that she processed patients’ credit card payments.
In regards to the fact that some of defendant’s patients were not full time Florida residents, this Court finds the ultimate-consumer doctrine instructive. That doctrine states that goods are no longer in the stream of commerce once obtained by the ultimate consumer thereof. 29 U.S.C. § 203(I); Thorne, at 1267. This Court holds that although some patients may have been residents of other states, defendant was not engaged in interstate commerce if his contact with those patients was primarily local. Defendant averred that he only works within Florida. Defendant is licensed in Florida and other states but his license is “inactive” everywhere except Florida. There is no evidence to suggest that defendant solicited business from patients while they were out of state or that any contact with out of state patients was regular or recurrent.
This Court also holds that plaintiff’s use of the telephone or facsimile machines to make long distance phone calls or use of the internet and credit cards is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. To be considered “engaged in interstate commerce” a business must use a credit card specifically to transact business in interstate commerce. Here, defendant has submitted sufficient evidence to show that his practice is a local enterprise “and the items used in the business proliferated this goal of local service.” Polycarpe v. E & S Landscaping Servs, Inc., 572 F.Supp.2d 1318, 1321-22 (S.D.Fla.2008). This also appears to be the case in regards to internet usage. Pierre C. Bien-Aime v. Nanak’s Landscaping, Inc., 2008 WL 3892160 (S.D.Fla. August 12, 2008). “The fact that the Defendant Company provided services of an exclusively local nature is dispositive. Polycarpe at 1322.
In regards to telephone and facsimile usage, although plaintiff averred that her job duties included contacting out of state insurance companies she did not allege how much of her time was spent conducting these activities. It could be that defendant or Ms. Erb conducted the majority of those activities and that plaintiff only occasionally contacted out of state insurance companies.”
The Court held that Plaintiff failed to show that she regularly and recurrently engaged in interstate commerce.
Defense and Plaintiff attorney’s alike, who regularly handle FLSA cases are scratching their heads with this decision, which, on its face, found issues of fact which should have led to a denial of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion. Nonetheless, the Court, pointing out all the factual issues, seemingly applied both an incorrect Summary Judgment standard, and an incorrect reading of the FLSA’s coverage provisions (both Enterprise and Individual) and dismissed what appears to be a perfectly valid case, at least at the Summary Judgment stage.
Of additional concern, a review of the docket reveals that the Court ignored well-settled law and refused to allow the Plaintiff (non-movant) time to conduct limited discovery on the issue of coverage, prior to ruling on Defendant’s Motion, which was filed at the inception of the lawsuit and prior to any discovery.
Overtime Law Blog 