Escamilla v. Nuyen
200 F. Supp. 3d 114
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2008 to January 2013 in Mr. Nuyen's apartment buildings.
- Plaintiff alleges 66 hours per week at $10/hour; Defendants claim he was an independent contractor and worked fewer hours.
- FLSA and DC minimum wage revision act govern overtime, with economic reality test to determine employment.
- Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on employee status, overtime liability, employer liability of Mr. Nuyen, liquidated damages, and equitable tolling.
- Court analyzes whether factors show employer control, payment, and records; credibility disputes remain material.
- Court denies summary judgment on all five asserted issues due to disputed facts and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Escamilla an employee under the FLSA? | Escamilla was employee per economic reality factors. | Escamilla was an independent contractor. | Material facts dispute; summary judgment denied. |
| Did Defendant violate the FLSA by denying overtime pay? | Worked about 66 hours weekly; owed overtime at 1.5x. | Not more than 40 hours; paid per job/contractor. | Disputed hours and records; summary judgment denied. |
| Is Nuyen the Plaintiff's employer under the FLSA, making him liable jointly/solitarily with corporate Defendants? | Nuyen had operational control and paid/pay practices; liable as employer. | Dang was the actual supervisor; Nuyen's status is based on credibility and may be pressed only if employee status is proven. | Not decided; denial of summary judgment until employee status proven. |
| Are Plaintiff's claims for liquidated damages appropriate? | Liability established would entitle liquidated damages; no good faith defense shown. | If no liability, liquidated damages moot; good faith defense remains unresolved. | Deny summary judgment; depends on liability finding. |
| Is equitable tolling applicable to extend the statute of limitations to the start of employment? | Ayala framework supports tolling due to misconduct and lack of notice. | Notice not required if independent contractor; facts distinguish Ayala and Cruz. | Disputed facts preclude tolling; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (1961) (economic reality test for employment)
- Morrison v. Intl. Programs Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (four-factor control framework for employment status)
- Henthorn v. Dep’t of Navy, 29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (economic reality test origins)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (willful violation standard for statute of limitations)
- Ayala v. Tito Contractors, Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 279 (D.D.C. 2015) (equitable tolling considerations in FLSA cases)
- Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) (tolling based on lack of notice rule)
- Hunter v. Sprint Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2006) (incomplete records; prima facie case and credibility issue on hours)
- Ventura v. Bebo Foods, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (corporate officer as employer under FLSA when operational control exists)