529 F. App'x 541
6th Cir.2013Background
- Marcus Werner, a certified ultrasound technician, worked for three medical practices (2005–2009); defendants classified him as an independent contractor and paid $40/hr.
- Werner filed a wage complaint with the DOL and then sued under the FLSA and Tennessee law seeking unpaid overtime; he later added retaliation and defamation claims.
- Defendants terminated Werner after his DOL complaint; the case was removed to federal court and tried to a jury.
- The jury found for defendants on the FLSA claims but awarded Werner $15,000 on defamation (unchallenged on appeal).
- Werner moved for JMOL or a new trial arguing he was an FLSA “employee” (not an independent contractor); the district court denied relief and this appeal followed.
- The Sixth Circuit applied the FLSA’s “economic reality” test (six non‑exhaustive factors) and affirmed the denial, concluding reasonable jurors could find Werner an independent contractor on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Werner was an “employee” under the FLSA (economic‑reality test) | Werner: facts (long at‑will relationship; control over hours; employer supplied tools; pay set by defendants; inability to work elsewhere) compel employee status as a matter of law | Defendants: specialized skill, negotiated pay, lack of supervision/control over how ultrasounds were performed, worked for multiple centers — support independent‑contractor status | Jury reasonably found independent contractor; appellate court affirms—reasonable minds could differ under the economic‑reality factors |
| Whether the question of employment status should have been decided by judge (JMOL/bench) rather than jury | Werner: undisputed facts required a legal determination of employee status | Defendants: factual disputes existed and parties requested a jury trial (waiving a bench resolution) | Court: factual disputes made this a jury question; Werner waived bench trial by demanding jury; JMOL denied |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying new trial | Werner: verdict against weight of undisputed evidence; JMOL evidence compelled employee finding | Defendants: verdict supported by competing inferences from record; no clear error | Denial of new trial affirmed—no clear error; verdict not unreasonable |
| Whether retaliation claim should be separately addressed | Werner briefly raised retaliation tied to employee status | Defendants: retaliation instruction presupposed employee status; jury found independent contractor | Court did not reach retaliation merits because claim relied on employee-status finding; appellant failed to challenge instruction on appeal (waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2012) (standards for reviewing JMOL and new trial denials)
- Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 496 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for Rule 50(b) review)
- Ellington v. City of East Cleveland, 689 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2012) (use of economic‑reality test to determine FLSA employee status)
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1992) (economic‑dependence formulation of employee status)
- Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1984) (six‑factor economic‑reality test and independent‑contractor analysis)
- Fegley v. Higgins, 19 F.3d 1126 (6th Cir. 1994) (employment‑status usually a question of law but fact disputes may require factfinder)
- Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (1986) (limits on appellate courts’ factual fact‑finding and deference to trial factfinders)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988) (FLSA standards; cited regarding precedential limits)