Jacobson v. Comcast Corp.
740 F. Supp.2d 683, 16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1380, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102834 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company that contracts with third-party service providers is not a 'joint employer' under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) merely because it exercises extensive quality control over the contractors' employees, provided the control is aimed at ensuring service standards and not managing the core terms and conditions of employment, and the company pays the contractor sufficient fees to cover the workers' lawful wages.
Facts:
- Comcast Corporation contracted with third-party Installation Companies to install cable services for its customers.
- The Installation Companies hired Plaintiffs, a group of cable technicians, to perform the installation work under contracts that explicitly stated the technicians were not Comcast employees.
- Comcast required all prospective technicians to pass a criminal background check and a drug screening before they could perform work on its behalf.
- Comcast issued technicians Comcast ID badges and retained the authority to 'deauthorize' any technician, which prohibited them from performing work for Comcast and was tantamount to termination since the Installation Companies worked almost exclusively for Comcast.
- Using a program called 'Cable Data,' Comcast monitored technicians' work in real-time, including their location, time on site, and adherence to performance metrics.
- Comcast paid the Installation Companies on a per-service basis for completed jobs.
- The Installation Companies were solely responsible for determining the technicians' rate and method of pay, issuing paychecks, and managing all other human resources policies.
- Technicians and the Installation Companies owned their own tools and vehicles, though Comcast provided a specialized tool required to unlock Comcast equipment boxes.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a group of cable technicians, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against their direct employers (the Installation Companies) and Comcast Corporation.
- The complaint sought overtime wage payments from all defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Comcast was a joint employer.
- Defendant Comcast Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, it was not a joint employer of the Plaintiffs.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company become a 'joint employer' under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for its contractor's employees when it exercises significant quality control, sets performance standards, and maintains the power to effectively terminate the employees' work for the company, but does not control their pay rates or day-to-day management?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Frederick Motz
No, a company does not become a joint employer under these circumstances. Applying the 'economic reality' test, the court concluded that Comcast's control over the technicians was qualitatively different from the control exercised by an employer. Comcast's power to 'deauthorize' technicians and its rigorous monitoring were functions of quality control necessary to protect its business and customers, not control over the fundamental terms of employment. The Installation Companies retained authority over the essential employment decisions: they hired the technicians, determined their rate and method of pay, managed their daily work, and maintained their employment records for purposes other than quality control. The court reasoned that while Comcast's supervision was substantial, it was consistent with a standard independent contractor relationship where a client sets detailed specifications for a highly technical service.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between a closely supervised independent contractor relationship and a joint employment relationship under the FLSA. It provides a framework for large companies to outsource essential functions and impose strict quality standards without incurring liability as a joint employer. The court's distinction between control for quality assurance versus control over the terms of employment offers significant protection to companies utilizing such business models. The opinion's suggestion that the primary company must pay its contractors enough to cover FLSA wages introduces a novel consideration, potentially creating a future line of inquiry in joint employment cases.
