Bonilla v. Power Design Inc.
201 F. Supp. 3d 60
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Isaac Bonilla worked as an electrical worker on a D.C. renovation project beginning in Nov. 2015 and alleges he and coworkers were denied overtime and misclassified as independent contractors.
- Power Design (electrical subcontractor) directed work, supplied tools, and managed timesheets; DDK Electric (labor broker) handled paychecks and IRS forms.
- Bonilla sued Power Design, DDK Electric, and Clark Construction (the general contractor) under the FLSA and multiple D.C. wage laws, asserting overtime, wage-payment, and misclassification claims.
- Complaint pleads factual employer relationships with Power Design and DDK but only labels Clark as the “general contractor” without alleging the economic-reality factors showing Clark acted as Bonilla’s employer.
- Bonilla also pled (separately) that Clark is vicariously liable for subcontractors’ wage violations under D.C.’s Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act.
- Clark moved to dismiss: (1) claims alleging it was Bonilla’s employer for failure to plead economic-reality facts, and (2) vicarious-liability claims based on a subcontract indemnity/contract provision it says relieves it of liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark Construction is Bonilla’s “employer” under FLSA and D.C. law | Bonilla contends Clark’s role as general contractor supports inference of employer status | Clark argues mere status as general contractor is insufficient; plaintiff must plead economic-reality factors | Court: Dismissed employer-status claims against Clark for failure to plead economic-reality factors (hire/fire, control, pay method, records) |
| Whether Clark is vicariously liable for subcontractors’ wage violations under D.C. law despite its contract with Power Design | Bonilla alleges Power Design and DDK were his employers and were Clark’s subcontractors; D.C. law makes general contractors jointly/severally liable for subcontractors’ wage violations | Clark points to a contract indemnity/contract clause and emergency amendment language it says can relieve a general contractor from vicarious liability | Court: Denied dismissal — under D.C. Wage Theft Prevention amendments Clark can be vicariously liable; the cited contract language is an indemnity, not a release from statutory vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires plausible factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Morrison v. Int’l Programs Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (economic-reality factors for FLSA employer status)
- Luna-Reyes v. RFI Constr., LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 744 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (example where general contractor alleged employer status with detailed facts)
- Mendoza v. Essential Quality Constr., Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. La. 2010) (similar precedent regarding general contractors and employer status)