Renteria-Camacho v. Directv, Inc.
2:14-cv-02529
D. Kan.Oct 16, 2017Background
- Renteria-Camacho worked as a DIRECTV technician (Mar 2009–Jul 2011) through subcontractors Speedy and Quest, then in-house; paid by Speedy/Quest on piece-rate 1099 basis while subcontracted.
- DIRECTV used Service Provider Agreements (SPAs) with subcontractors and a scheduling/dispatch system (SIEBEL) that assigned jobs by Tech ID and timestamped start/finish; SIEBEL was not payroll but tracked schedules.
- Plaintiff alleges he worked ~50–60 hours/week and 10–15 hours overtime weekly without overtime pay; he provided estimates of unpaid overtime and unreimbursed business expenses.
- DIRECTV contends technicians were independent contractors, not DIRECTV employees; argues it lacked knowledge of unpaid overtime, that §207(i) retail/service-commission exemption applies, and raises statute-of-limitations and unclean-hands defenses.
- District court considered the FLSA economic‑realities factors, joint‑employer tests, and evidence about SIEBEL, hiring/control, payment method, equipment investment, and prior litigation/settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee vs. Independent Contractor status | Renteria-Camacho: economically dependent on DIRECTV (control via SIEBEL, scheduling, qualifications; work integral) | DIRECTV: technicians were subcontractors paid piece‑rate by Speedy/Quest, lacked direct control, techs supplied tools | Material facts disputed under the economic‑realities test; summary judgment denied (jury to decide) |
| Joint‑employer liability | Renteria-Camacho: DIRECTV shared control (hiring standards, scheduling, audits, chargebacks) so joint employer | DIRECTV: subcontractors hired/paid techs; DIRECTV did not maintain payroll or hire/fire directly | Material factual issues exist on joint‑employer factors; summary judgment denied |
| Knowledge of unpaid overtime & §207(i) exemption | Renteria-Camacho: DIRECTV should have known (SIEBEL scheduling, company oversight) and paid technicians on piece‑rate so overtime unpaid; not entitled to §207(i) | DIRECTV: lacked actual knowledge of hours/pay; argues §207(i) exemption because techs earned >1.5× min wage and >50% commissions | Court finds triable issues on employer knowledge; DIRECTV failed to prove weekly regular rate for §207(i) (burden on defendant) so exemption not established; summary judgment denied |
| Proof of damages & unclean hands defense | Renteria-Camacho: his testimony estimating 10–15 overtime hours/week suffices when employer failed to keep records; identity issue should not bar FLSA claim | DIRECTV: plaintiff’s estimates insufficient; plaintiff committed fraud by using his father’s identity to get Tech ID, so unclean hands bars recovery | Plaintiff met Mt. Clemens burden to make reasonable inference; employer’s recordkeeping duty shifts precise proof burden to defendant. Unclean‑hands defense insufficient to bar claim; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence for nonmoving party)
- Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497 (10th Cir.) (economic‑realities test for employee status)
- Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720 (10th Cir.) (economic dependence vs. in business for oneself framework)
- Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d 802 (10th Cir.) (investment and permanence factors in employee/contractor analysis)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 680 (U.S.) (burden to show amount and extent of unpaid work; employer recordkeeping duty)
- Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419 (U.S.) (definition of regular rate for overtime calculations)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S.) (willfulness standard for extended FLSA statute of limitations)