Perez v. Howes, 7 F. Supp. 3d 715

DOL sued Darryl Howes (d/b/a Darryl Howes Farms) alleging violations of the FLSA (minimum wage and recordkeeping) and the MSPA (substandard migrant housing and interference with DOL investigation) based on the 2011 cucumber harvest.
In 2011 Howes contracted with 38 migrant harvesters under signed "independent contractor" agreements splitting gross proceeds; Howes provided seed, equipment, collection boxes, transport, and supervised/inspected fields during the 45‑day harvest.
Most harvesters worked the entire season and relied on Howes for plot access, buyer/price, and field conditions; workers required little training and made minimal capital investments (gloves/wheelbarrows).
Howes did not keep daily time records; instead he recorded weekly self‑reported hours. He previously was fined (2010) and agreed not to provide migrant housing, yet his employee prepared and maintained units at the "Green Camp" where many workers lived; DOL inspections found multiple housing safety violations.
During DOL field interviews in August 2011 Howes and an associate photographed and positioned themselves close to interviews; DOL inspectors ceased interviewing due to the presence and recorded activity, which DOL characterized as interference.
On cross‑motions for summary judgment the court considered economic‑reality factors and documentary/deposition evidence (striking defendant‑submitted worker affidavits as untimely) and granted the Secretary partial summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the harvesters "employees" under the FLSA?	Workers were economically dependent on Howes and thus employees entitled to FLSA protections.	Workers were independent contractors per written share‑proceeds agreements.	Held employees under the economic‑reality test (six‑factor analysis).
Did Howes violate FLSA recordkeeping rules?	Howes failed to keep daily records as required.	He kept weekly summaries and measured pay accordingly.	Held violation of FLSA recordkeeping; injunction requiring accurate daily/weekly records ordered.
Is Howes liable under MSPA for Green Camp housing conditions?	Howes controlled the housing through his employee and thus must ensure MSPA compliance.	He did not own or personally control the property; only authorized employee repairs.	Held Howes controlled the housing (agent acted within scope) and is liable for MSPA housing violations.
Did Howes interfere with DOL investigation (MSPA)?	Howes’ proximity, photographing, and directing employees to record/observe interviews impeded DOL interviews.	He only photographed in plain view and did not attempt to listen or record interviews; no unlawful interference.	Held Howes interfered with the investigation; injunction prohibiting recording/interference and requiring space for private interviews ordered.

Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., 642 F.3d 518 (6th Cir.) (use economic‑reality test for FLSA employee status)
Donovan v. Brandel, 736 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir.) (sharecropper/harvester analysis and factors for seasonal agricultural workers)
Lauritzen v. Larsen, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir.) (seasonal harvesters and employee status analysis)
Cavazos v. Foster, 822 F. Supp. 438 (W.D. Mich.) (factors supporting employee status for migrant harvesters)
Elizondo v. Podgorniak, 70 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Mich.) (pickle harvester employees under FLSA)
Donovan v. Gillmor, 535 F. Supp. 154 (N.D. Ohio) (contrast decision finding employees/dependent harvesters)
Martin v. Funtime, 963 F.2d 110 (6th Cir.) (standards for injunctive relief under FLSA)
Reich v. Petroleum Sales, Inc., 30 F.3d 654 (6th Cir.) (factors for FLSA injunctions)
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex.) (broad construction of MSPA "control")
Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Wash.) (videotaping/observer presence can unreasonably interfere with DOL interviews)