Mario Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125

Background

Plaintiffs (drywall installers) were directly employed by J.I. General Contractors (a subcontractor) but performed almost all work on Commercial Interiors’ jobsites, using Commercial-provided materials, tools, and branded safety gear.
Commercial supervised work daily: required sign-in on Commercial timesheets, ran site meetings (including safety), directed tasks and rework, and communicated staffing and scheduling needs to J.I.
J.I. generally paid employees and handled hiring, but Commercial sometimes issued paychecks, directly hired workers when J.I. could not meet requirements, and dictated hours on certain contracts.
Plaintiffs sued under the FLSA and Maryland wage laws claiming Commercial was a joint employer with J.I.; the district court granted summary judgment for Commercial under a novel five-factor test focused on traditional contractor-subcontractor legitimacy and intent to evade law.
The Fourth Circuit reversed, adopting a new joint-employer test centered on whether two entities share or codetermine the essential terms and conditions of employment and whether the worker is an employee under the combined influence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commercial was a joint employer under the FLSA	Plaintiffs: Commercial and J.I. jointly codetermined essential terms (control, scheduling, tools, supervision) so hours must be aggregated and liability shared	Commercial: Relationship was a legitimate contractor–subcontractor arrangement; oversight was quality control, not joint employment	Held: Yes—Commercial and J.I. were joint employers based on undisputed facts showing codetermination and control
Proper legal test for joint employment under the FLSA	Plaintiffs: District court’s test was inconsistent with FLSA and DOL regs; joint-employer inquiry should focus on relationship between employers	Commercial: District court’s industry-focused factors appropriate to avoid overbroad joint-employer findings	Held: Fourth Circuit rejected the district court’s novel test and Bonnette-style control focus; adopted a six-factor test emphasizing whether employers are "not completely disassociated" and codetermine essential terms
Role of "economic dependence" and common-law control in joint-employer analysis	Plaintiffs: FLSA’s broad definitions require focus on codetermination between employers, not only worker’s economic dependence	Commercial: (implicit) reliance on traditional control/economic-dependence approaches to deny joint employment	Held: Economic-dependence/common-law agency tests are for employee v. independent-contractor analysis; joint-employer inquiry is distinct and examines inter-employer relationship and shared control
Whether Plaintiffs are employees (not independent contractors) once joint employment established	Plaintiffs: Were J.I. employees; combined with Commercial’s control they are employees of the joint employers	Commercial: Not argued to change outcome here; district court already found Plaintiffs were J.I. employees	Held: Plaintiffs are employees under the Silk economic-realities factors viewed across the combined employment, so joint employment produces FLSA coverage and liability

Key Cases Cited

Tenn. Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944) (FLSA must be broadly construed to effectuate remedial purpose)
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (recognition of joint employment where contractor workers also subjected to operator’s supervision)
Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (1973) (entity may be employer when it exerts substantial control over employment conditions)
United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360 (1944) (FLSA’s broad definition of employee)
Darden v. United States, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (FLSA’s definitions bring in workers beyond common-law agency)
Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (four-factor test focusing on control; court here rejects Bonnette for joint-employer analysis)
Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003) (economic-reality approach supplementing control test; distinguishes employee v. independent contractor inquiry)
Schultz v. Capital Int’l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2006) (two-step joint-employer framework: first determine employer relationship between entities, then worker status)
Reyes v. Remington Hybrid Seed Co., 495 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2007) (caution that multifactor scores are not a substitute for totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (joint employment can exist despite legitimate business reasons for contracting)
In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2012) (relevant factors include employer practices like payroll and control)
Butler v. Drive Automotive Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing joint-employer tests under other statutes with narrower definitions)