Donovan v. Dialamerica Marketing, Inc.
757 F.2d 1376, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 113 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To determine whether a worker is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), courts must apply an "economic reality" test that examines the totality of the circumstances. This test focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the alleged employer, rather than on technical labels or the common law concept of control, especially in the context of homework.
Facts:
- DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., a telephone marketing firm, sold magazine renewal subscriptions, which required locating subscribers' phone numbers.
- In 1976, DialAmerica created a program for individuals, primarily women, to research these phone numbers from their homes.
- These "home researchers" would pick up cards with names and addresses, find the phone numbers at home, and return the completed cards to DialAmerica's office.
- DialAmerica required researchers to sign an "Independent Contractor’s Agreement," paid them on a piece-rate basis (e.g., 5-10 cents per card), and set minimum batch sizes.
- The company provided specific instructions on how to complete the cards, required the use of a particular type of pen, and enforced a dress code for office visits.
- A small group of home researchers also acted as "distributors," picking up cards from DialAmerica, delivering them to other home researchers, and returning the completed work.
- Distributors were paid an additional cent per card and, after a certain point, were allowed to negotiate the piece rate paid to the researchers they managed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against DialAmerica Marketing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The complaint alleged that DialAmerica violated the FLSA's minimum wage and record-keeping requirements for its home researchers and distributors.
- After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DialAmerica, ruling that both the home researchers and distributors were independent contractors.
- The district court also denied DialAmerica's subsequent motion for attorneys' fees.
- The Secretary of Labor (appellant) appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are home-based telephone number researchers and the individuals who distribute work to them 'employees' subject to the minimum wage and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), or are they independent contractors?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge
Yes, as to the home researchers; No, as to the distributors. The home researchers are employees under the FLSA because the economic reality of their relationship shows they were dependent on DialAmerica. The distributors, however, function more as independent contractors because they had opportunities for profit or loss and exercised managerial skill. The court adopted the six-factor test from Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners to analyze the 'economic reality' of the working relationships. For the home researchers, five of the six factors pointed towards employee status: 1) their investment was minimal, 2) their opportunity for profit or loss was negligible, 3) the work required no special skills, 4) the working relationship was largely permanent, and 5) their service was an integral part of DialAmerica's business. The court found the district court erred by overemphasizing the 'control' factor, noting that a lack of direct supervision is inherent to homework and not dispositive under the FLSA. The district court also misinterpreted 'economic dependence' to mean dependence for life's necessities, when the proper legal definition is dependence on the business for continued employment opportunities. For the distributors, the balance of factors pointed to independent contractor status. They exercised managerial skill, made investments in transportation, and had a real opportunity for profit or loss based on how they managed their routes and negotiated pay rates with their distributees. Furthermore, their work of distribution was deemed incidental, not integral, to DialAmerica's primary business.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the six-factor 'economic reality' test from Sureway Cleaners in the Third Circuit, solidifying a broad, functional standard for determining employee status under the FLSA. It significantly clarifies that for homeworkers, the traditional 'right to control' test is less important than factors demonstrating economic dependence. The court's redefinition of 'economic dependence'—focusing on the worker's reliance on the business for work, not for primary income—is a crucial precedent that broadens FLSA protections for part-time, secondary-income, and gig-economy workers. This ruling makes it more difficult for employers to classify workers performing integral business functions as independent contractors simply because they work remotely with minimal supervision.
