Flores v. FS Blinds
73f4th356
| 5th Cir. | 2023Background
- Three window-blind installers (Flores, Romero‑Rodriguez, Villarreal) worked for FS Blinds installing, measuring, delivering, and repairing blinds across greater Houston.
- FS Blinds labeled them independent contractors and did not keep time records; installers were paid flat fees per job and used their own vehicles/tools; plaintiffs picked up materials at FS Blinds’ warehouse each morning.
- Plaintiffs claimed an average workweek of roughly 70 hours, supported by testimony about typical start/end times and by work orders for a sample week.
- Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA for unpaid overtime; both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for FS Blinds, finding plaintiffs failed to substantiate overtime under Mt. Clemens.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed: applying the Mt. Clemens lenient burden‑shifting rule, plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of unpaid overtime; the court remanded for the district court to reconsider employee‑vs‑independent‑contractor status and, if necessary, damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs meet the Mt. Clemens prima facie burden to show unpaid overtime when employer kept no time records? | Testimony of usual start/stop times and work orders support an average ~70‑hour workweek. | Assertions are speculative and schedules vary; plaintiffs offered only estimates. | Plaintiffs satisfied the lenient Mt. Clemens standard and survived summary judgment on overtime. |
| Did FS Blinds rebut the Mt. Clemens inference? | Employer kept no records and thus cannot show precise hours. | Pointed to deposition inconsistencies and weeks with less work to negate averages. | FS Blinds failed to produce undisputed evidence negating plaintiffs’ proof; rebuttal unsuccessful at summary judgment. |
| Are plaintiffs employees or independent contractors under the FLSA (economic‑reality test)? | Plaintiffs argued they are employees (economically dependent). | FS Blinds maintained they are independent contractors. | Not decided on appeal; case remanded for district court to determine under the five‑factor economic‑reality test. |
| How should damages be calculated if employees? | Damages may be based on reasonable inferences from testimony and records under Mt. Clemens. | Challenges precision of estimates and asks for offsets where shown. | District court should make the best feasible damage assessment under Mt. Clemens; adjust if employer identifies errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (lenient burden‑shifting when employer fails to keep records)
- Harvill v. Westward Commc’ns, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (unsubstantiated assertions insufficient under Mt. Clemens)
- U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Five Star Automatic Fire Prot., L.L.C., 987 F.3d 436 (explaining Mt. Clemens leniency)
- Hobbs v. EVO, Inc., 7 F.4th 241 (accepting plaintiffs’ testimony estimates under Mt. Clemens)
- Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., 917 F.3d 369 (five‑factor economic‑reality test for employee status)
- Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338 (FLSA covers employees, not independent contractors)
- Skipper v. Superior Dairies, Inc., 512 F.2d 409 (employer may disprove employee’s evidence)
- Mitchell Truck Line v. Mitchell, 286 F.2d 721 (district court should make best feasible damage assessment)