TALARICO v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, 5:17-cv-02165

Plaintiff Ralph Talarico and thousands of direct-care workers provided services under Pennsylvania’s HCBS §1915(c) Self-Directed (Participant-Employer) waiver; PEs (participants) hire, supervise, schedule, train and terminate DCWs per federal/state rules.
Pennsylvania contracted with Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL) to serve as the required Vendor Fiscal/Employer Agent (VF/EA) to provide fiscal management: payroll processing, tax/withholding, background checks, timesheet validation, and issuance of paychecks reimbursed by the State.
Service Coordinators and OLTL (state) create and approve Service Plans and Service Budgets that set authorized hours and maximum billable rates; PEs choose DCWs and set actual pay within program limits.
DCW agreements, Common-Law Employer agreements, program documents, and PPL’s grant agreement expressly identify the PE as the DCW’s employer and describe PPL as a fiscal/financial agent.
PPL screens DCWs, performs background checks and will not pay DCWs until program requirements are met, but it does not recruit, hire, fire, discipline, supervise day-to-day work, set schedules, or independently set pay outside state limits.
Procedural posture: PPL moved for summary judgment on FLSA, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and WPCL claims; Court granted summary judgment for PPL, dismissing the action in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PPL is a joint employer under the FLSA	PPL exercises control over hiring/eligibility, approves DCWs before pay, sets/approves pay ranges, validates timesheets and maintains payroll — showing economic control	PPL is only a state-contracted fiscal/administrative agent carrying out state-mandated paperwork and payroll functions; PEs (with Service Coordinators) make hiring, firing, scheduling, supervision, and pay decisions within state limits	PPL is not a joint employer; no reasonable jury could find employment relationship under the Enterprise/economic-reality test; FLSA claims dismissed
Whether PPL is an employer under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act	MWA follows FLSA employer-analysis; thus PPL is liable if FLSA joint-employer found	Same as FLSA: no employment relationship exists	MWA claims dismissed for same reasons as FLSA
Whether WPCL claim can proceed against PPL	Plaintiff asserts an implied contract or ability to enforce statutory wage rights under WPCL even absent written contract	No written or implied contract with PPL; WPCL in this district requires a contractual obligation to recover under WPCL	WPCL claim dismissed for lack of any (implied or express) contract with PPL

Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2014) (economic-reality test governs FLSA employee inquiry)
In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2012) (four-factor Enterprise test for joint-employer inquiry)
Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (economic realities/joint employer principles)
American Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., 584 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary-judgment standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard)
Pignataro v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 593 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2010) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Yue Yu v. McGrath, [citation="597 F. App'x 62"] (3d Cir. 2014) (lack of hire/fire authority weighs against employer status)