Fields v. Advanced Health Care Management Services, LLC
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 582
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fields is an EMT/paramedic who worked for Respondent on a full-time hourly basis at its Ellington hospital; District began managing Carter County ambulance operations May 1, 2006 and leased employees from Respondent; Boyer, District employee, oversaw District operations and the lease ended Oct 19, 2006; Oct 23, 2006 Ogden hired Fields to work shifts for District on a part-time, as-needed basis; Fields continued full-time work for Respondent and District paid by a separate arrangement; Respondent acted as a professional employment organization (PEO) for District, handling payroll and benefits for District-related shifts; February 7, 2008 Fields was fired by Respondent and sued for unpaid overtime under FLSA and Missouri law
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fields was dually and separately employed by Respondent and District | Fields argues dual separate employment; District independent employer for shift work | Respondent/District disputes dual employment; District controls its own shifts/pay | Fields was dually and separately employed by Respondent for full-time work and by District for shift work |
| Whether Fields is entitled to overtime for District shift work | Overtime should be owed under FLSA/Missouri law when second job exists | No overtime from Respondent for District shifts since separate employer controls pay and schedule | No entitlement to additional overtime from Respondent because of dual separate employment |
| What framework governs the economic realities of employment in this case | Economic realities test should show common employer | Economic realities show separate employment for District shift work | Four-factor Baker framework applied; supports separate employment for District and Respondent for different duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Stone County, Missouri, 41 F. Supp. 2d 965 (W.D. Mo. 1999) (economic realities framework for FLSA employment)
- Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (economic realities factors; premises and equipment relevance)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 818 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (persuasive authority on employment relationships)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for trial court judgments)
- East Hills Condominiums Ltd. Partnership v. Tri-Lakes Escrow, Inc., 280 S.W.3d 728 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009) (de novo review of legal conclusions; weight of evidence context)