LP3 Oral Argument Flashcards
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947).
o Facts: Slaughterhouse company. Boners worked there. Meat boners were employees.
o Degree of control of the individual;
o Permanency of the relationship;
o Integration of the individual’s work in the business to which they render service;
o Skill required by the individual;
o Investment by the individual in facilities for work; and
o Opportunity of the individual for profit or loss.
o Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
courts are no longer required to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
29 U.S.C.A. § 202
o FLSA aimed at eliminating unfair practices, including child labor
29 U.S.C.A. § 203.
FLSA defines “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 326 (1992
o FLSA rooted in child labor statutes and expands “employee” to include some individuals who might not qualify under traditional agency law principles
Bartels v. Birmingham. 332 U.S. 126 (1947)
o Shortly after FLSA enacted (1938), SCOTUS discarded common law control test and adopted multi-factor ER
the lower court applied the right-to-control test, Court held that they must consider whether, “as a matter of economic reality,” workers are dependent upon the business they serve.
Facts: Operators of public dance halls. Bands played there. Band leader was employer.
o United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 716 (1947
the Court considered employment definitions for employment taxes under the Social Security Act.
employment status cannot be determined solely by examining an employer’s control over workers.
individuals qualify as employees when they are, as a matter of economic reality, dependent upon the business they serve
o Johnson v. NCAA, 108 F.4th 163, 177 (3d Cir. 2024).
Third Circuit reaffirmed the importance of applying the multi-factor test for determining employment status.
College athlete was employee under FLSA of NCAA.
o Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 106 A.3d 449, 460-61 (N.J. 2015
New Jersey Supreme Court adopted three/six elements of ER test. Hybrid test that considers control, skill, permanence, integration.
Rejected CL RTC test.
Facts: Hargrove delivered mattresses ordered by customers of Sleepy’s. Didn’t decide whether employee.
o Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 89 Fed. Reg. 1638-01 (Jan. 10, 2024
right-to-control variation would disrupt both workers and businesses by straying from established case law
o Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434, 443 (11th Cir. 1994
these factors irrelevant when it is undisputed that the individual is an employee rather than an independent contractor
- Three factors inapplicable
o Skill required by the individual;
o Investment by the individual in facilities for work; and
o Opportunity of the individual for profit or loss
Facts: Farm contracted with farm labor contractor to provide laborers to harvest crops. Deciding only whether farm was joint employer with the contractor. No question of IC.
Conclusion: Was joint employer under factors
- Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., 887 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2018).
o Facts: Church corp owned restaurant and operated it partly with UNPAID church members.
o Conclusion: Members didn’t expect compensation, so threshold fails. But, coercion can instead satisfy threshold inquiry. But, no coercion here because the coercion must be economic, not societal/spiritual.
o Sixth Circuit stated that an expectation of compensation is a threshold requirement before analyzing the economic realities of a relationship
- Tony and Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec. of Lab., 471 U.S. 290, 295 (1985) (citing Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152 (1947)).
o Supreme Court has similarly held that an individual who works without any expectation of payment is not covered by the FLSA
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 152 (1947)).
Facts: Yard brakeman were trained by yard crew to learn. Held trainees were not employees because no expectation of payment.
Holding: individuals who primarily served their own interests were not employees
o Orozco v. Plackis, 757 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2014)
- Courts have assigned various meanings to the “right to control,” but they commonly consider whether the alleged employer:
o Had the power to hire and fire the employee;
o Supervised the employee and controlled their work schedule;
o Determined the amount and method of payment; and
o Maintained employment records.
o Vickery v. City of Roswell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189488, at *21 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2024)
Facts: Battalion Chief for the city’s fire department participated in interviews and made recommendations.
Holding: lacked hiring and firing authority because he did not make the final decision. input carried no particular weight.
o Arencibia v. 2401 Rest. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 164, 176 (D.D.C. 2011).
finding that a maître d’ who “interviewed applicants and made recommendations” was not an employer under the FLSA because the employer’s “approval was required and obtained before informing any employee he was actually hired”
Other federal courts have affirmed that hiring and firing authority rests with the person who makes the ultimate decision
o Gray v. Powers, 673 F.3d 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2012).
Facts: a bartender argued that Powers, one of the bar’s owners, was his employer based on ownership alone, claiming this implied hiring and firing power
Holding: simply being an owner does not establish FLSA liability, as a status-based inference of control is inadequate
absence of evidence of record maintenance weighed against employee status
o Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., 917 F.3d 369, 381 (5th Cir. 2019)
Facts: drilling consultants were not considered employees of the oil company because, although the company set their work locations and hours, it did not dictate how they performed their daily tasks
Holding: An individual may not be an employee if they do not dictate how workers must perform daily tasks, even if they specify when and where work should take place
o Sigui v. M + M Commun., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d 29, 35 (D.R.I. 2020)
Facts: Company requires workers to follow detailed guidelines and closely supervised their tasks
Field service telecommunications technicians were subject to company’s control and were employees because
* Company nearly completely controlled performance of work by assigning work orders to technicians
* Dictated amount and types of equipment it allowed out of warehouse
* Directed manner that each task was to be performed
* Required technicians to wear specific uniforms and display logos on vehicles
* Controlled hiring, firing, pay rate, and work schedules
o An individual may be an employee if their employer controls their compensation timing, method, and amount.
Holding: requiring adherence to specific guidelines and supervising through inspections and meetings showed sufficient control to establish an employment relationship
o Jerozal v. Stryker Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17503, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024).
Facts: broad guidelines, like instructing workers to “abide by the expectations… of their manager,”
Holding: An entity may not control an individual’s work conditions if it provides only high-level policies in a handbook without directing daily tasks
o Zhao v. Bebe Stores, Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
mere access to records does not equate to control over them
o Saleem v. Corporate Transp. Group, Ltd., 52 F. Supp. 3d 526, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Facts: drivers could terminate their agreements with a transportation company at will and often worked for other companies
Holding: In evaluating exclusivity, an individual may not be an employee if they can freely end their agreements and work for multiple employers. court held this indicated a lack of permanence in their relationship, weighing against employee status
drivers were integral to a transportation company’s operations, which “slightly” favored employment status. This factor alone was not dispositive; because most other economic reality factors weighed against employment, the drivers were not employees of the transportation company
o Diego v. Victory Lab, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1275, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2017
Facts: Diego was contracted for seventeen weeks, worked only six weeks, and had no ongoing obligation to the company.
Holding: arrangement indicated a lack of permanence and weighed against employee status
o Carrell v. Sunland Const., Inc., 998 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1993)
working for three to sixteen weeks weighed against employee status
o Johnson v. Hous. KP, LLC, 588 F. Supp. 3d 738, 746 (S.D. Tex. 2022).
Facts: there was no evidence that workers worked for other companies or on a project-by-project basis
Holding: Court found this factor to be neutral, not supporting employee status
o Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1376, 1385 (3d Cir. 1985);
Facts: defendant operated a call center, and the plaintiffs located phone numbers for sales calls
Holding: Because locating numbers was critical to the defendant’s operation, the court held that the plaintiffs’ work was integral and classified them as employees
o Reich v. Shiloh True Light Church of Christ (895 F. Supp. 799 (W.D.N.C., 1995).
Holding: children performing construction work as part of a church program were employees because they worked under the church’s direction, were not paid, and their labor benefited the defendants
o Acosta v. Paragon Contractors Corp., 884 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2018);
Facts: ranch had an arrangement with a church, whereby the church would send community members—mostly children—to work there
Holding: children were employees, partly because they were pressured by their parents, community, and church to work for the ranch
