Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
683 F.3d 462
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Hickton filed a nationwide FLSA collective action alleging Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (parent of 38 subsidiaries) violated overtime requirements.
- District Court granted summary judgment that Enterprise Holdings was not a joint employer under the FLSA.
- Plaintiffs appeal; Third Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s summary-judgment ruling.
- Enterprise Holdings directly/indirectly provides services to subsidiaries, including guidelines, HR services, and other support, but subsidiaries may opt in or out.
- Board interlocks exist: three individuals serve on both subsidiary boards and the Enterprise Holdings board, indicating potential control but not necessarily joint employment.
- Court adopts the Enterprise test, combining Bonnette and modified Lewis factors, to determine joint-employer status under the FLSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enterprise Holdings is a joint employer of the plaintiffs under the FLSA. | Hickton argues significant control via interlocking boards and unified enterprise practices. | Enterprise Holdings contends it lacked authority to hire/fire, set schedules/pay, supervise, or maintain employee records; recommendations were discretionary. | No; Enterprise Holdings is not a joint employer under the Enterprise test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of PA. v. N.L.R.B., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) (significant control can create joint employment)
- Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for joint employment focusing on control)
- Baystate Alternative Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1998) (adopts Bonnette framework in joint-employment analysis)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (emphasizes totality of the circumstances and economic realities)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (employment relationship depends on circumstances of the whole activity)
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op, Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (1961) (economic reality test of employment)