Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., 917 F.3d 369

Background

Premier Directional Drilling hired directional-driller consultants (DDs) and measurement-while-drilling consultants (MWDs); some DDs were labeled employees and some as independent contractors (ICs).
Plaintiffs (five DDs; collective-action plaintiff Parrish plus four opt-ins) sued under the FLSA claiming misclassification as ICs and unpaid overtime; case proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premier supplied MWDs and significant expensive equipment, mandated safety training and drug testing, provided software/laptops and certain supplies, and required project-specific compliance with plans and reporting.
Putative ICs were paid per-job/daily rates and could decline assignments; employees received salary, day bonuses, allowances, and benefits.
The district court applied the five-factor Silk economic-reality test, concluded plaintiffs were employees, awarded damages using a three-year limitations period, and denied Premier’s motion.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and vacated the district court’s judgment, rendering judgment for Premier on employee-status grounds (so did not reach damages/willfulness question).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs were "employees" under the FLSA (economic-reality/Silk factors)	Plaintiffs argued their work was supervised, they were treated like employees, could not subcontract, and lacked meaningful opportunity for independent profit — supporting employee status	Premier argued DDs controlled how they performed technical work, could reject jobs, had separate businesses and profits/losses, and relationships were project-based — supporting IC status	The court held plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law after weighing Silk factors (control, investment, profit/loss, skill, permanency) in the totality of circumstances, and rendered judgment for Premier
Appropriateness of summary judgment on employee-status question	Plaintiffs urged summary judgment was proper for their employee-status ruling	Premier sought vacatur and either judgment for it or remand for trial, arguing genuine disputes of material fact existed	The court held no genuine dispute of material fact would change outcome; summary judgment deciding employment status as a matter of law was appropriate
Use of three-year limitations period (willfulness) for damages	Plaintiffs (district court) applied three-year period without explicit willfulness finding	Premier challenged applying three-year limit absent a willfulness finding	The Fifth Circuit did not reach merits of limitations/willfulness after ruling for Premier on classification (damages issue unnecessary)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (Sup. Ct.) (formative five-factor economic-reality test for employee status)
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (Sup. Ct.) (labeling as contractor does not control when work follows "usual path" of employee)
Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161 (Sup. Ct.) (FLSA protections apply regardless of high wages)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standards: no genuine dispute of material fact)
Brock v. Mr. W Fireworks, Inc., 814 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.) (economic-reality focus; ultimate employee-status determination is legal)
Usery v. Pilgrim Equip. Co., Inc., 527 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir.) (expansive FLSA employee definition; investment and dependence analysis)
Carrell v. Sunland Constr., Inc., 998 F.2d 330 (5th Cir.) (side-by-side investment comparison; permanency and project-based work analysis)
Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338 (5th Cir.) (application of Silk factors; express-agreement and tax-label limits)
Thibault v. Bellsouth Telecomm., 612 F.3d 843 (5th Cir.) (skilled contractors and profit/loss control support IC status)
Herman v. Express Sixty–Minutes Delivery Serv., 161 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (Silk factors framed: control, investment, profit/loss, skill, permanency)