Thompson v. Blessed Home Inc.
22 F. Supp. 3d 542
E.D.N.C.2014Background
- Thompson sued Blessed Home, Inc. and Onuorahs alleging FLSA, NCWHA, REDA violations, and common law wrongful discharge.
- Defendants answered claiming Blessed exempt under FLSA § 213(a)(15) and (b)(21); plaintiff amended pleadings and defendants counterclaimed for abuse of process.
- Plaintiff moves to dismiss or grant summary judgment on abuse of process, on Blessed’s exemption defenses, and on Blessed’s status as an enterprise and on Felicia/Amobi as employers.
- Court addresses summary judgment standard and analyzes whether abuse of process claim survives, whether Blessed is an FLSA enterprise subject to the Act, and whether exemptions apply.
- Court also considers whether Felicia and Amobi Onuorah are individually liable as employers under FLSA and NCWHA.
- Concludes: abuse-of-process counterclaim fails; Blessed is subject to FLSA and not exempt; both Onuorahs are proper employers; and grant partial summary judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abuse of process counterclaim survives. | Thompson | Onuorahs | Counterclaim fails; no improper act shown; granted summary judgment for Thompson. |
| Whether Blessed is an FLSA enterprise and subject to minimum wage/overtime. | Thompson | Blessed is an enterprise under § 203(s)린 | Blessed qualifies as an enterprise and is subject to FLSA unless exemptions apply. |
| Whether exemption under § 213(a)(15) applies. | Thompson | Blessed seeks exemption as casual domestic service or companionship. | Exemption does not apply; not a private home; summary judgment for Thompson. |
| Whether exemption under § 213(b)(21) applies. | Thompson | Domestic service exemption applies. | Not applicable; private home requirement not met; summary judgment for Thompson. |
| Whether Felicia and Amobi Onuorah are employers under FLSA/NCWHA. | Thompson | Onuorahs denied personal liability. | Onuorahs are employers; jointly liable; Plaintiff granted partial summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E.2d 611 (1979) (N.C. 1979) (abuse of process requires ulterior motive and improper act in process use)
- Dole v. Odd Fellows Home Endowment Bd., 912 F.2d 689 (4th Cir.1990) (4th Cir. 1990) (enterprise requirements; three-part test for enterprise coverage)
- Garcia v. Frog Island Seafood, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D.N.C. 2009) (E.D.N.C. 2009) (economic reality test; employer status factors)
- Chapman v. A.S.U.I. Healthcare & Dev. Ctr., 562 F. App’x 182 (5th Cir. 2014) (5th Cir. 2014) (caregivers as employees under FLSA; private home concept)
- United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 909 L. Ed. 2d 1176 (1947) (U.S. 1947) (economic reality factors for employee status)