607 F. App'x 121
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are professional tennis umpires who officiated at the U.S. Open and brought a putative class action claiming unpaid overtime under the FLSA and NYLL.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States Tennis Association (USTA), concluding the umpires were independent contractors, not employees.
- Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s September 15, 2014 summary judgment order.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether plaintiffs were "employees" under the FLSA using the economic-reality test and under the NYLL using a control-focused test.
- The record showed umpires are highly skilled, exercise substantial independent initiative, choose whether and how many days to officiate each year, can work for others, are not on USTA payroll or receiving fringe benefits, and often reported independent-contractor tax status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether umpires are "employees" under the FLSA (economic-reality test) | Umpires function as integral parts of USTA’s business and should be employees entitled to overtime | Umpires exercise independent control, skill, and initiative; have opportunity for other work; short-term engagement; thus independent contractors | The court held umpires are independent contractors under the FLSA; summary judgment for USTA affirmed |
| Whether umpires are employees under NYLL (control-focused test) | Umpires should be employees under NYLL given their role at the U.S. Open | Umpires worked at their own convenience, could engage in other employment, received no fringe benefits, were not on payroll, and claimed contractor tax status | The court held umpires are independent contractors under the NYLL; District Court’s judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988) (sets out the FLSA economic-reality multi-factor test)
- Bynog v. Cipriani Grp., Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 193 (N.Y. 2003) (NYLL inquiry focuses on degree of employer control; lists relevant control factors)
- Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment review standard and drawing inferences for non-moving party)