Maria Rodriguez vs Jones Boat Yard, Inc.
435 F. App'x 885
11th Cir.2011Background
- Rodriguez, a Nicaraguan national, was hired as a live-in caregiver for Ofelia in May 2000 with duties including personal care, errands, finances, and companionship.
- From May 2007 to August 2009, Rodriguez was on Jones Boat Yard, Inc.'s payroll and included in its 401(k) plan.
- Rodriguez received regular payroll checks from Jones but did not perform additional work for Jones or Victor during that period.
- In August 2009 Rodriguez was fired; she filed a FLSA wage-and-hour action in October 2009, amended April 2010.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing companionship services exemption and economic reality employer status; the magistrate recommended in favor of Defendants in July 2010.
- District court adopted the R&R and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on October 25, 2010; Rodriguez appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sham affidavit rule was properly applied | Rodriguez argues the post-deposition affidavit creates a material fact issue. | Defendants contend the affidavit contradicts clear deposition testimony and is a sham. | District court did not abuse discretion; affidavit struck. |
| Whether Rodriguez is exempt under the companionship services exemption | Rodriguez contends 20%+ general household work vitiates exemption. | Evidence shows nearly all work related to Ofelia's personal care; exemption applies. | Exemption applies; work predominantly personal care. |
| Whether Defendants were Rodriguez's employers under the FLSA | Economic reality shows Defendants employed and controlled Rodriguez. | Rodriguez did not perform work for Victor or Jones; no employment relationship. | No employer status; district court affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1986) (sham affidavit rule explained)
- Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202 (11th Cir. 1997) (economic reality and employer status framework)
- Antenor v. D&S Farms, 88 F.3d 925 (11th Cir. 1996) (employment status under FLSA de novo review)
- Buckner v. Florida Habilitation Network, Inc., 489 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2007) (companion exemption extends to third-party employers)
- Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 475 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) (evidentiary evidence admissibility; abuse of discretion standard)