Federal Appeals Court Hands FLSA Victory to Cable Technicians
Independent contractors are generally not entitled to the basic protections provided employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act - namely minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40. It is not surprising that some employers misclassify certain employees as "independent contractors" in an effort to deny them the guarantees of federal and state wage and hour laws. Here, the work of Attorney Ian Russell led to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rule that the employees who provided cable, internet and telephone services established that they were "employees" with FLSA rights.
The trial court judge refused to let the plaintiffs go to trial, concluding that the technicians were independent contractors under the FLSA. To determine independent contractor status, courts look for the "economic reality" in the relationship between the employee and employer. Courts weigh several factors: (1) the nature and degree of employer’s control regarding the manner how the work is 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.
The federal appeals court weighed those factors based on plaintiffs' evidence and determined four strongly favored plaintiffs as employees, while two weakly favored employees as independent contractors. (1) Technicians had negligble control over work assignments and schedules; (2) Technicians had little opportunity for profit or loss based upon their managerial skill, such as by hiring their own employees; (3) Technicians invested in own tools and equipment, but did so through payroll deductions that purchased from the employer; (4) the skills held by technicians frequently were provided by the employer; (5) technicians had longstanding and dependable, rather than intermittent, relationships with the employer; (6) the technicians provide core services of the employer's business.
In light of this imbalance in favor of technicians, the appeals court ruled that the District Court should not have dismissed the suit. Attorney Russell worked on this case for his previous employer.
