1:09-cv-02309
E.D.N.YFeb 11, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Lawrence brought a putative FLSA collective and NY Labor Law class action against Adderley and Cablevision for alleged wage and hour violations; suit filed May 29, 2009 in EDNY.
- Cablevision contracts with Adderley to perform installation, service, repair, and removal work; Adderley technicians perform most work for Cablevision’s customers.
- SIS Agreement governs Adderley’s performance and requires adherence to Cablevision’s specifications, training, and safety standards, but Cablevision does not hire or pay Adderley workers.
- Adderley is not a subsidiary/affiliate of Cablevision; Adderley’s revenue comes from Cablevision, and Adderley assigns technicians and routes, while Cablevision monitors quality but does not control day-to-day employment decisions.
- Plaintiff worked as an Adderley technician for about ten months (May 2009–March 2009), used personal or Adderley tools, wore Adderley uniforms, did not receive Cablevision pay or benefits, and reported to Adderley personnel; plaintiff’s paycheck listed Adderley, not Cablevision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cablevision is a joint employer under the FLSA and NY Labor Law. | Lawrence contends Cablevision exercised control over workers. | Cablevision lacked formal and functional control over technicians. | Cablevision is not a joint employer. |
| Whether formal control factors establish employer status. | N/A | No evidence Cablevision could hire/fire, supervise, set pay, or maintain records for technicians. | Formal control not present; no joint-employer finding. |
| Whether functional control factors show joint employment. | N/A | Even with some oversight for quality, Cablevision did not manage day-to-day employment or wages. | No functional control establishing joint employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (economic realities framework for joint employment)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., Inc. (Zheng I), 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (nontraditional factors; multi-factor test for employment status)
- Herman v. MidAtlantic Installation Services, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Md. 2000) (contractor role; client control for quality does not equal employee status)
- Santelices v. Cable Wiring, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (minimal oversight does not create joint employment)