Lang v. DIRECTV, INC.
801 F. Supp. 2d 532
E.D. La.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are satellite television technicians who installed DirecTV systems in customers’ homes.
- DirecTV uses both direct hires and Home Service Providers (HSPs) to install and maintain systems; JP & D and Modern Day were HSPs.
- Lang, Humphrey, and Tucker began working under Modern Day in 2007–2008.
- Plaintiffs sue under FLSA and LWPA, alleging unpaid/minimum wage, overtime, and related violations, plus record-keeping and other state-law claims.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to categorize plaintiffs as independent contractors; the court denied the motion finding genuine issues of material fact.
- The court analyzes whether plaintiffs are employees or independent contractors considering joint-employer status and multiple factual factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Lang, Tucker, and Humphrey employees or independent contractors under the FLSA? | Plaintiffs are employees entitled to FLSA protections. | Plaintiffs are independent contractors; only Modern Day’s relationship matters. | Genuine issues of material fact prevent summary judgment on employment status. |
| Should the court consider joint-employer status in determining FLSA liability? | Control by multiple defendants could render joint employment. | Only the contract with Modern Day should be examined. | Court treats the relationship as a “one employment” for purposes of the FLSA at this stage. |
| Do the facts show sufficient control over work hours and methods to indicate an employer-employee relationship? | There is evidence of control and directive memoranda from DirecTV. | Control evidence is not dispositive of an independent-contractor status. | Disputed facts exist; cannot grant summary judgment on control. |
| Do the facts show plaintiffs’ opportunity for profit or loss indicative of employee status? | Profit opportunities and deductions suggest independence. | Profit/loss control by employer indicates employee status when deductions and job control are strong. | Material facts disputed; summary judgment not warranted. |
| Do skill and initiative factors favor employee or independent-contractor status? | Plaintiffs could operate with some initiative and perform custom work. | Discretion is limited by employer directives. | Facts are contested; not determinative for dismissal on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1947) (broad employee definition and economic-reality focus)
- Hopkins v. Cornerstone America, 545 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (economic reality test and factors for employment status)
- Hathcock v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc., 262 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2001) (control factor considered in economic reality analysis)
- Carrell v. Sunland Const., Inc., 998 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1993) (instructions to perform work indicating potential employer control)
- Weisel v. Singapore Joint Venture, Inc., 602 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1979) (employment status under FLSA definitions)
- R. v. Parrilla (cited in opinion), (not official reporter; see discussion in text) (2009) (charge-backs and control factors bearing on status)