Kinslow v. 5 Star Field Services Group, LLC, 1:19-cv-01605

Background

Plaintiffs Ronald Kinslow, Lucas Hill, and opt‑in Elias Medina performed handyman/maintenance work for Five Star Field Services (Five Star) and worked on properties managed by Title One Management (Title One); Robert Gilstrap is sole owner of both companies.
Plaintiffs claim they worked substantial overtime (alleging regular weeks over 40 hours) during different time windows (Kinslow: Apr 9, 2018–Jan 2019; Hill: May 2017–Aug 6, 2018; Medina: Jan–Oct 2017) and were paid hourly but not for overtime.
Operational facts in dispute: Plaintiffs had mandatory meetings, used company emails/tablets/apps and GPS tracking, were expected to work Mon–Fri 8–6 exclusively for defendants, could not hire subcontractors, sometimes used company vehicles, and were required to take job photos and obtain approvals for larger repairs.
Record evidence is sparse or inconsistent (few timesheets; some invoices; testimony alleging fabricated or withheld timesheets), so the court applied the FLSA relaxed proof regime for inadequate employer records.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on FLSA overtime, breach of contract, and intentional breach claims. The Court denied the motion in full, finding genuine factual disputes (including whether plaintiffs were employees, whether Gilstrap was an individual employer, and whether breaches were intentional) and ordered mediation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Individual liability: Is Gilstrap an "employer" under the FLSA?	Gilstrap exercised control (hiring, setting pay, instructing, resolving pay disputes, directing work).	Gilstrap was not involved in day‑to‑day operations or supervision.	Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute exists on employer status.
Corporate liability / joint employer: Are Title One and Five Star (or both) employers/joint employers?	Title One & Five Star functionally overlap (shared personnel, office, policies) and both exercised control over technicians.	Entities are separate; plaintiffs’ relationship was with Five Star only; not joint employers.	Denied summary judgment — factual issues on joint/employer status remain.
Employee vs. independent contractor (economic‑reality)	Economic‑reality factors (control, integral work, limited profit opportunity, tracking and direction) support employee status.	Plaintiffs owned basic tools, had limited tenure, and therefore were independent contractors.	Denied summary judgment — weighing factors (five of six favored employee) creates a jury question.
Unpaid overtime & records: Did plaintiffs work uncompensated overtime and can they prove damages?	Plaintiffs produced testimony and some timesheets showing >40‑hour weeks; allege fabrication/withholding of records.	Defendants say no sufficiency of proof and dispute hours; argue lack of coverage/employee status.	Denied summary judgment — employer records inadequate; relaxed proof applies and factual disputes over hours/damages remain.
Breach and intentional breach of contract	Plaintiffs assert contractual hourly pay was breached and withholding/time alterations were deliberate.	Defendants claim no breach or any error was inadvertent/good faith.	Denied summary judgment — factual disputes (e.g., allegedly fabricated timesheets) preclude resolution.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and identifying record support)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and standard for genuine factual dispute)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party burden and inferences on summary judgment)
Bailey v. TitleMax of Ga., Inc., 776 F.3d 797 (11th Cir. 2015) (FLSA unpaid‑overtime elements: worked overtime and employer knew or should have known)
Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., 711 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013) (relaxed burden‑shifting when employer records are inadequate)
Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013) (economic‑reality factors for employee vs. independent contractor)
Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986) (individual liability: officer’s involvement in day‑to‑day operations or supervision informs employer status)
Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012) (investment in equipment factor and joint‑employer considerations)
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (profit/loss and whether technical skill indicates independent‑contractor status)
Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (employer record reliability and implications for proof of hours)