Santiago v. Construction Cleaning Pros AZ LLC
2:23-cv-01511
D. Ariz.May 2, 2025Background
- Demetrio Santiago performed construction cleaning for Construction Cleaning Pros AZ, LLC (CCP) in Arizona, from May to June 2023.
- CCP paid Santiago $150 per day in cash, generally upon satisfactory completion of work, but sometimes withheld payment if work was deemed inadequate or if CCP had not yet been paid for the project.
- Santiago was offered work by text, could accept or refuse assignments, and at times did work for other employers.
- CCP provided all the cleaning supplies and equipment, periodically supervised his work, and required him to redo unsatisfactory work.
- Santiago filed suit alleging CCP misclassified him as an independent contractor, seeking wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage laws.
- Santiago moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of his employment status under the FLSA; the court granted his motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee vs. Contractor under FLSA | Santiago was controlled by CCP, lacked profit/loss control, minimal skill, used CCP’s supplies. | Santiago could accept/decline work, work elsewhere, was labeled contractor. | Santiago was an employee under FLSA. |
| Payment and Control | CCP set rate, provided materials, supervised work. | Santiago chose when to work and worked for others. | CCP exercised significant control; factor favors employee status. |
| Application of Driscoll Factors | Most factors support employee status, especially CCP’s control/investment. | Some factors (impermanence, outside work) favor contractor status. | 5 of 6 Driscoll factors weigh for employee. |
| Procedural Deficiency in FLSA Argument | CCP’s FLSA coverage objection was not procedurally proper. | CCP argued it wasn’t FLSA-covered due to revenue. | Court declines to consider improperly raised FLSA coverage defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979) (sets forth economic realities/Driscoll factors for employee status)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden of proof)
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (economic realities prevail over contractual labels)