Brown v. Platinum Wrench Auto Repair, Inc.
8:10-cv-02168
M.D. Fla.Feb 2, 2012Background
- Miller is the founder and president of Platinum Wrench Auto Repair, Inc. and has been largely hands-off since 1996.
- Plaintiff Larry Brown, Jr. was hired in February 2008 as a non-exempt hourly maintenance technician and was supervised by Douglas, Marquis, and Gonzales.
- Douglas, Marquis, and Gonzales controlled Plaintiff’s pay rate, work activities, and work schedule; Miller had no role in these matters.
- Plaintiff alleged FLSA overtime violations for hours worked beyond forty per week without proper overtime pay.
- Miller moved for summary judgment, arguing he could not be personally liable as an FLSA employer; Plaintiff failed to respond after given opportunity.
- Court granted summary judgment for Miller after reviewing the record and finding Miller lacked day-to-day control and supervision over Plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Miller an FLSA 'employer' liable for overtime? | Miller should be liable due to involvement in employment decisions. | Miller had no day-to-day control or supervisory role over Plaintiff. | No; Miller is not an employer under the FLSA. |
| Does Patel Alvarez Perez-type analysis bar personal liability for Miller? | Corporate officers may be liable if involved in employment decisions. | Miller had no operational control or responsibility for supervision or compensation. | Miller not personally liable as employer; no operational control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (employer status requires control over employment-related decisions)
- Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986) (corporate officer not per se employer; must have day-to-day involvement)
- Hodgson v. Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Inc., 471 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1973) (circumstances of whole activity determine employer status)
- Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment standard and evidence evaluation)
- Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1993) (genuine issue standard for summary judgment)
- Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006) (indirect inference in summary judgment context)