Michael Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC
781 F.3d 799
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Keller worked ~20 months as a satellite‑internet technician for Miri, performing installations/repairs six days/week; paid per job (e.g., $110 per installation), no tax withholding or benefits.
- Keller completed 2–4 jobs/day; Miri scheduled jobs in customer time blocks, required HughesNet certification (which Miri provided), and required post‑installation reports/photos.
- Keller supplied some tools, a vehicle (wife’s van), minor consumables and small electronic devices; Miri provided dishes/modems, office facilities, scheduling software, and customer assignments.
- Keller sued under the FLSA claiming unpaid overtime; the district court granted summary judgment for Miri finding Keller an independent contractor.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding genuine disputes of material fact exist on employee status and on whether Keller worked >40 hours/week.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Keller was an “employee” under the FLSA (economic‑reality test) | Keller was economically dependent on Miri: long/regular relationship, training by Miri, limited practical ability to work for others, integral services | Keller was an independent contractor: could refuse jobs, controlled territory/schedule, provided some tools/vehicle, could hire helpers | Reversed district court — genuine disputes of material fact on multiple Brandel factors (permanency, skill, investment, profit/loss, control, integral service) preclude summary judgment; issue for jury |
| Whether Keller’s investment/opportunity for profit indicates independent business | Keller’s investments were minimal or common (van used personally, basic tools), so not evidence of economic independence | Keller invested in work equipment, insurance, tools and could theoretically increase profit by hiring helpers or expanding | Genuine dispute: investments and profit/loss potential are ambiguous and must be resolved by factfinder |
| Whether Miri exercised sufficient control over work details | Miri controlled critical aspects (certification, specifications, scheduling, quality monitoring, warranty obligations, pricing) | Miri did not supervise day‑to‑day performance; technicians perform on their own and can refuse jobs | Genuine dispute: remote controls, training and monitoring could support employee status; jury must weigh the evidence |
| Whether Keller produced sufficient evidence of overtime hours (>40/week) | Keller’s testimony that he worked six days, up to four 2.5‑hour jobs/day (plus travel/paperwork) shows >40 hours; employer records lacking | Miri argues Keller failed to prove hours with employer records | Held for Keller: Keller’s testimony plus Miri’s deposition admissions create a triable issue that Keller worked >40 hours/week; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1992) (FLSA’s employee definition is broad; economic‑reality focus)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1947) (labels do not determine status; look to actual work relationship)
- Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1984) (six‑factor economic‑reality test for employee status)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard at summary judgment)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to prove unpaid work; testimony can suffice absent employer records)