906 F. Supp. 2d 312
D. Del.2012Background
- Cherichetti, pro se, sues Endieott for FLSA underpayment and failing to pay taxes, social security, and benefits; jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Endieott is an HVAC contractor; plaintiff performed electrical work on a USPS project via G-W Management LLC as an independent contractor arrangement.
- Plaintiff's employment ran Oct 13, 2008–Jun 1, 2009, with 5–7 days per week, no formal clock-in, and receipts via irregular checks.
- Plaintiff supervised two assistants, was supervised by Endieott and a G-W employee, and sometimes hired or replaced workers upon request.
- Plaintiff used his own tools and vehicle, lived in Florida, and expected pay per hour or contract draw, with variable checks.
- Court denied summary judgment due to genuine disputes on whether Plaintiff was an employee, focusing on the six-factor control-energy test and economic reality; the record shows inconsistent evidence and credibility issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Cherichetti an employee under the FLSA or an independent contractor? | Cherichetti asserts employment status; control and dependence indicate employee. | Endieott contends Cherichetti was an independent contractor. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; not entitled to summary judgment. |
| Do the six-factor test and economic realities support employee status here? | Totality suggests economic dependence on Endieott. | Factors weighed against employee status; no clear conclusion. | Material facts remain unresolved; no summary judgment on status. |
| Are wage-withholding and tax-collection aspects properly framed for relief? | Withholding and benefit payments were not properly handled. | Tax withholding relations are government–employer, not employee–employer. | Not dispositive at this stage; status issue governs wage claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1991) (six-factor test for employee status under FLSA)
- Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1985) (employer-employee relationship defined broadly under FLSA)
- Baker v. Flint Eng’g & Const. Co., 137 F.3d 1436 (10th Cir. 1998) (equipment/investment and control considerations for status)
- Lauritzen v. Secretary of Labor, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir. 1987) (permanence and exclusivity in working relationships)
- Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d 802 (10th Cir. 1989) (economic realities and dependence analysis in employee status)
- Schultz v. Capital Int’l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2006) (economic realities test and dependence for FLSA status)