56 A.3d 303
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Appellants sued Lusitano Construction, LLC, Geoffrey de Oliveira, and Francisco de Oliveira in Montgomery County for FLSA and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law violations.
- Trial court treble-damages judgment against Geoffrey and Lusitano for $57,400; Francisco was not found to be an employer.
- Appellants moved to amend the judgment to include attorney’s fees and costs and to enter judgment in Francisco’s favor for purposes of appeal; motion was denied.
- Appellants challenge Francisco’s status as an employer under both statutes and seek fees and costs on appeal.
- Panel holds Francisco is not an employer under FLSA or Payment and Collection Law; remands for the trial court to consider fees under the Payment and Collection Law; Francisco’s judgment entered in his favor; remaining judgments affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Francisco is an employer under the FLSA and Payment and Collection Law | Campusano argued Francisco exercised control and benefitted from labor | Francisco did not hire, set wages, or invest in Lusitano; Geoffrey retained control | Francisco not an employer under either statute |
| Whether appellants prevailing party status warrants attorney’s fees and costs | Fees should be awarded under FLSA §216(b) and Payment and Collection Law §507.2 | Trial court did not address fees; discretion reserved under LE §3-507.2 | Remand for trial court to determine fees and costs for Payment and Collection Law; potential denial or different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578 (Md. 2009) (economic reality test governs 'employer' in Wage and Hour Law; applied to Payment and Collection Law)
- Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (nonexclusive, flexible four-factor control test)
- Baystate Alt. Staffing v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1998) (economic realities focus on totality of circumstances and control over finances)
- Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2012) (exposition of the broad economic reality test and its application)
- Battaglia v. Clinical Perfusionists, 338 Md. 352 (Md. 1995) (differences between statutory definitions and common law in the Payment and Collection Law)
- Ayd v. Baltimore Harbor Charters, Ltd., 365 Md. 366 (Md. 2001) (distinguishes employer concepts under Payment and Collection Law from common law)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983) (agency and control considerations in employment liability)