Luna-Reyes v. RFI Construction, LLC
109 F. Supp. 3d 744
M.D.N.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Joaquin Luna-Reyes worked as an hourly carpenter for about a month in Oct. 2013 and alleges unpaid wages and no overtime premium for hours over 40.
- RFI Construction (a contractor), its owner/CEO Rupert Burrows, and subcontractor William Warrick were involved in hiring, supervising, paying, and supplying equipment for workers; Warrick handled payroll but conferred with RFI and sought funds from Burrows to pay workers.
- Plaintiff alleges the defendants shared control over his work (scheduling, supervision, instruction, ability to transfer or terminate) and that his work benefitted both Warrick and RFI.
- Procedural posture: After an earlier motion treated as for a more definite statement, Luna-Reyes filed a second amended complaint; RFI and Burrows moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court evaluated whether the second amended complaint plausibly alleges (1) that RFI Defendants and Warrick were joint employers under the FLSA and (2) that Luna-Reyes was an employee (not an independent contractor), and also considered a related NCWHA payday claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges an employer-employee relationship under the FLSA | Luna-Reyes alleges RFI and Burrows shared control with Warrick over hiring, supervision, pay, equipment, termination | RFI contends plaintiff failed to distinguish defendants, misconstrued "employer," and did not plead coverage or control facts | Court: complaint plausibly alleges employer status; motion denied |
| Whether a joint-employer relationship is alleged | Plaintiff: RFI and Warrick jointly employed him; work benefited both and control was shared | Defendants: plaintiff failed to show shared control or association among defendants | Court: allegations fit joint-employer framework (29 C.F.R. §791.2 examples); plausibly alleged joint employment |
| Employee vs. independent contractor status (economic-reality test) | Plaintiff: alleges control over manner/time/type of work, low skill, no investment, indefinite relationship, equipment provided | Defendants: argue facts show no employer relationship or plausibly an independent contractor | Court: economic-reality factors weigh toward employee; allegations sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) |
| Whether NCWHA payday claim is preempted by FLSA | Plaintiff: brings claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. §95-25.6 (payday statute) in addition to FLSA | Defendants: argue FLSA preempts NCWHA claim or fail for same reasons as FLSA claim | Court: §95-25.6 payday claims are not preempted by FLSA; claim stands; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Schultz v. Capital Int’l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2006) (joint-employment and economic-reality analysis under FLSA)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (FLSA construed broadly to cover relationships not previously classified as employer-employee)
- Brock v. Hamad, 867 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1989) (individuals can be employers under FLSA)
- Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.N.J. 2005) (general contractor may be joint employer when it exerts control over subcontractor’s workers)