Andro Tolentino v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Westin Hotel Management, LP
2014 Mo. LEXIS 201
Mo.2014Background
- Tolentino sued under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL) alleging Starwood and Westin were Tolentino's joint employers with GLS.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents, finding genuine issues of material fact but ultimately concluding they were not liable due to GLS’s illegal deductions.
- Starwood/Westin contract with GLS to supply housekeepers; GLS paid Tolentino $3.50 per room; Starwood paid GLS $5 per room.
- Tolentino’s April 2008 pay period yielded $427 gross, $372.34 after taxes, with visas fees deducted by GLS leaving Tolentino with $0 take-home pay; federal restitution was later awarded.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that even if GLS’s deductions occurred, Respondents had an independent statutory duty to pay a minimum wage if they were Tolentino’s employer.
- Case remanded for further consideration consistent with the duty to pay minimum wage under the MMWL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Respondents Tolentino's joint employers under the MMWL? | Tolentino asserts joint employment based on control and interest in Tolentino's work. | Respondents contend they were not Tolentino's employer. | Issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on joint-employer status. |
| Do the formal Fields factors establish a joint-employer relationship here? | Tolentino argues the formal factors show employment by both Respondents and GLS. | Respondents argue the factors do not clearly support joint employment and may be disputed. | There are genuine disputes on the formal factors; summary judgment improper. |
| Does GLS’s illegal wage deduction absolve Respondents of MMWL liability if Respondents are joint employers? | Tolentino contends Respondents remain independently liable for minimum wage despite GLS acts. | Respondents claim GLS’s actions relieve them of liability. | Remains that Respondents, if employers, have independent statutory duty; GLS's deductions do not absolve them. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the MMWL’s remedial purpose in this context? | Tolentino asserts broad remedial construction to ensure minimum wages. | Respondents argue reliance on common law agency/strict liability principles. | Remedial construction supports holding joint employers individually liable for minimum wage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Advanced Health Care Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 340 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. App. 2011) (five formal factors to assess employer status in Missouri)
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (formal factors used to determine joint employment (FLSA context))
- Conrad v. Waffle House, Inc., 351 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. App. 2011) (applies Fields factors in Missouri joint-employer analysis)
- Karr v. Strong Detective Agency, Inc., a Div. of Kane Servs., 787 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1986) (joint employers are individually responsible for FLSA compliance)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983) (joint employers jointly and severally liable under FLSA)
- Specht v. City of Sioux Falls, 639 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2011) (remedial statutes construed broadly to effectuate purpose)