620 F. App'x 546
7th Cir.2015Background
- Wharton and Furgason worked as technicians for Proteus Pros, LLC d/b/a Mr. Handyman and alleged unpaid overtime under the Indiana Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).
- James Furrer was sole member/manager of the LLC and was named individually as a defendant alongside the company.
- The district court previously granted partial summary judgment finding the company violated the IMWL; Furrer’s individual liability remained undecided going into a bench trial on damages.
- At trial the parties submitted proposed findings of fact: plaintiffs asked the court to find Furrer an “employer” and hold him jointly and severally liable; defendants’ submissions referred collectively to “Defendants” (the company and Furrer) and proposed awards against “Defendants.”
- The magistrate judge found Furrer jointly and severally liable with the company for damages; Furrer appealed only the finding of individual liability.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the magistrate judge’s finding that Furrer was an “employer” was not clearly erroneous, and that Furrer invited the ruling by the position he took at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Furrer can be held personally liable as an “employer” under the IMWL | Furgason/Wharton: Furrer exercised operational and employment control and is an employer; he should be jointly and severally liable with the company | Furrer: Only the LLC employed plaintiffs; as sole member/manager he is not an individual “employer” under IMWL | Court: Affirmed individual liability — finding not clearly erroneous and was invited by defendants’ own proposed findings |
| Whether the invited‑error doctrine bars Furrer from contesting liability on appeal | Plaintiffs: Defendants’ proposed findings treated Furrer as an employer, so he invited the error | Furrer: Submission of proposed findings should not preclude appellate review because plaintiffs lacked evidence against him | Court: Invited‑error doctrine applies; Furrer cannot complain about a result he invited |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Tangherlini, 737 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for bench trial factual findings)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (clear‑error standard explanation)
- Weise v. United States, 724 F.2d 587 (7th Cir. 1984) (cannot complain of invited error)
- Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., 444 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2006) (invited‑error doctrine applied where party elicited evidence at trial)
- United States v. Muskovsky, 863 F.2d 1319 (7th Cir. 1988) (invited‑error doctrine applied to party‑submitted jury instructions)
- Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 2013) (harmless‑error principle when an erroneous finding is irrelevant)
- Meyers v. Meyers, 861 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2007) (Indiana Supreme Court recognized plausibility of suing both closely held entity and individuals under IMWL)