Mario Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc.
848 F.3d 125, 2017 WL 360542 (2017)
Rule of Law:
Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exists when two or more persons or entities share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment, and the worker is an employee of the combined entity.
Facts:
- J.I. General Contractors, Inc. (J.I.), a framing and drywall subcontractor, directly employed Mario Salinas, William Ascencio, Bernaldino Salinas, and Franklin Henriquez (Plaintiffs) as drywall installers.
- Since 2009, J.I. contracted to provide labor almost exclusively for Commercial Interiors, Inc. (Commercial), a company offering general contracting and interior finishing services, with Plaintiffs working primarily on Commercial’s jobsites.
- Commercial foremen actively supervised Plaintiffs' work daily, providing instructions on tasks and methods, and requiring them to attend frequent project and safety meetings.
- Commercial dictated the start and end times for work on the jobsite, and Commercial foremen sometimes told Plaintiffs to work additional hours or on Sundays.
- Commercial required Plaintiffs to sign in on timesheets provided by Commercial and bearing its logo, which Commercial retained and used to record Plaintiffs’ daily work hours.
- Plaintiffs wore hardhats and vests bearing the Commercial logo, and were instructed to tell anyone who asked that they worked for Commercial; J.I. supervisors also received Commercial-branded sweatshirts to wear.
- Commercial owned and provided nearly all the tools and materials Plaintiffs used to complete their tasks, despite Commercial’s contract with J.I. stating J.I. was obligated to provide them.
- On at least one occasion, Commercial required several Plaintiffs to complete employment applications and work directly for Commercial when J.I. faced difficulties enrolling in a mandated insurance program.
Procedural Posture:
- Mario Salinas, William Ascencio, Bernaldino Salinas, and Franklin Henriquez (Plaintiffs) filed a collective action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against J.I. General Contractors, Inc. (J.I.), Juan and Isaias Flores Ramirez, and Commercial Interiors, Inc. (Commercial), alleging violations of the FLSA and Maryland wage laws.
- Commercial moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not jointly employ Plaintiffs.
- The United States District Court for the District of Maryland (trial court) granted summary judgment to Commercial, concluding that Commercial did not jointly employ Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs' claims against J.I. and the Ramirez brothers proceeded to a three-day bench trial in the District Court.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against J.I. and the Ramirez brothers, which was subsequently satisfied.
- Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Commercial (Appellee) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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:
Does a general contractor jointly employ a subcontractor's workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when the general contractor and subcontractor are not "completely disassociated" with respect to the essential terms and conditions of the workers' employment, requiring aggregation of hours for FLSA compliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Wynn, Circuit Judge
Yes, a general contractor jointly employs a subcontractor's workers under the FLSA when the contractor and subcontractor are not "completely disassociated" with respect to the essential terms and conditions of the workers' employment. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, rejecting its novel five-factor test that focused on the legitimacy of the contracting relationship and the parties' intent to evade FLSA compliance. Instead, the court adopted a new six-factor test for the first step of the joint employment inquiry, which focuses on whether two entities "share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine—formally or informally, directly or indirectly—the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment," as outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(a). This approach moves away from common-law agency principles and the economic dependency test for the initial determination of whether entities are joint employers. Applying the new test, the court found, based on undisputed facts, that Commercial and J.I. jointly directed, supervised, and controlled Plaintiffs; shared authority over employment terms (such as hours); had a longstanding, nearly exclusive business relationship; and shared responsibility over employer functions like providing tools/materials and tracking hours. For the second step of the joint employment analysis, which determines if the worker is an employee or independent contractor, the court applies the "economic realities" test, using the six factors from United States v. Silk. Since Plaintiffs were undisputedly employees of J.I. alone, they were necessarily employees of the combined Commercial and J.I. entity, especially given Commercial’s pervasive involvement.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the Fourth Circuit's standard for FLSA joint employment, aligning it more closely with the FLSA's broad remedial purpose and Department of Labor regulations. By rejecting common-law agency principles and economic dependence as the primary lens for the joint employer determination, the court establishes a more inclusive framework for holding entities accountable. The new six-factor test provides a clear analytical tool for courts, making it harder for entities like general contractors to escape wage and hour liability by merely outsourcing labor if they retain substantial, shared control over workers' employment terms. This decision underscores that even legitimate business relationships do not automatically shield parties from joint employer status under the FLSA, encouraging greater compliance and worker protection.
