444 F.Supp.3d 204
D.D.C.2020Background:
- Plaintiff Wendy Medina worked as a cleaner for Kevorkian Cleaning Co. (and its president Christopher Kevorkian) in two stints in 2015 and 2016 and sued for unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA, the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWRA), and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL).
- Defendants contend Medina was an independent contractor (or Negrette’s contractor) and therefore not entitled to statutory wage/overtime protections; they also dispute hours worked and pay calculations.
- The parties dispute (a) whether Defendants satisfied D.C. posting/notice requirements (relevant to tolling/limitations), (b) whether Kevorkian exercised sufficient control to establish employee status, and (c) the number/duration of hours Medina actually worked; no contemporaneous time records were produced.
- Plaintiff sought summary judgment (including joint-employer/general-contractor theories); Defendants moved for full summary judgment and argued statute-of-limitations bar for the first stint and independent-contractor status.
- Court denied almost all summary-judgment relief because of numerous genuine disputes of material fact (control, hours, duration, credibility), but granted partial summary judgment dismissing Medina’s FLSA claims insofar as they relate to work performed before May 31, 2015 (declining equitable tolling of the FLSA limitations period).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of FLSA claims (pre-May 31, 2015 work) | Toll statute via equitable tolling or rely on DCMWRA posting exception | FLSA/other claims time-barred for first stint | Court declined equitable tolling for FLSA; dismissed FLSA claims for pre-May 31, 2015 work; DCMWRA claim survives pending factual disputes |
| Employee v. independent contractor | Medina was an employee (Defendants controlled scheduling, inspected sites, communicated with her) | Medina was an independent contractor/subcontractor; Kevorkian lacked supervisory control | Material factual disputes on control and related factors preclude summary judgment for either side |
| Number of hours worked / wage/overtime calculations | Medina claims high weekly hours (e.g., 49–63 hrs/wk) and underpayment | Defendants assert far fewer hours; thus wages were lawful and no OT owed | No summary judgment: credibility disputes over hours and duration prevent resolution |
| Alternative liability theories (joint-employer / general-contractor) | Even if Negrette hired her, Defendants are joint employers or general contractors jointly liable | Liability requires factual showing of joint employment or contractor/subcontractor relationship | Denied on summary judgment due to underlying factual disputes and lack of evidence supporting those theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Int’l Programs Consortium, Inc., 253 F.3d 5 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (articulates four-factor test for employee status under FLSA)
- Henthorn v. Dep’t of Navy, 29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (on circular statutory definitions and interpretive limits)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003) (directs economic-reality inquiry to resolve employee/independent-contractor question)
- FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (no single factor is dispositive; must weigh all incidents of relationship)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard: genuine dispute when reasonable jury could find for nonmovant)
- Ayala v. Tito Contractors, Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 279 (D.D.C. 2015) (discusses tolling FLSA limitations in context of failure to post plus active deception)
- Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) (explains FLSA notice issues and limits of automatic tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)