Grenawalt v. AT & T Mobility, LLC
937 F. Supp. 2d 438
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Grenawalt, Miranda and Alicea, former security guards, sue A-0 and DePompo, AT&T Mobility, Gladius, and Centuria for unpaid wages and related claims in the New York metro area stores.
- AT&T contracted with Gladius to provide security; Gladius subcontracted with A-0 to supply guards and coordination.
- The Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) was signed June 24, 2008 between Gladius and A-0 containing an arbitration clause; ICA stated it did not create a direct employment relationship with Plaintiffs.
- Gladius terminated the ICA February 25, 2011; Centuria later contracted with AT&T to replace Gladius; Centuria subcontracts with Stone Security to manage guards.
- Guards were paid through A-0 (1099s, with one instance of a W-2), AI-0/Gladius invoices controlled by DePompo, and AT&T kept no attendance records, instead receiving Gladius invoices.
- AT&T stores sometimes used guards on an as-needed basis, with store managers requesting coverage; guards performed armed security and occasional incidental tasks; AT&T did not set individual guard schedules or pay rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AT&T is a joint employer under the FLSA/NYLL. | Plaintiffs contend AT&T had hiring/firing power and control over schedules. | AT&T had minimal involvement; ultimate control rested with DePompo/A-0 and Gladius. | AT&T is not a joint employer under the FLSA/NYLL. |
| Whether third-party beneficiary and successor-in-interest claims against Gladius and Centuria must be arbitrated under the ICA. | Plaintiffs seek third-party beneficiary status independent of ICA arbitration. | Arbitration clause in ICA covers disputes arising under related contracts; implied contracts linked to ICA. | Third-party beneficiary and successor-in-interest claims must be referred to arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Dutchess Community College, 735 F.2d 8 (2d Cir.1984) (four factors for joint employment under FLSA)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir.2003) (introduced Zheng factors and broad economic realities test)
- Jean-Louis v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc., 838 F.Supp.2d 111 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (example of non-joint-employer finding under FLSA)
- Herman v. RSR Security Services Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.1999) (fact-specific joint employment considerations)
- Ward v. National Geographic Soc., 208 F.Supp.2d 429 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (implied contracts and arbitration considerations)