Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.
854 F.3d 131 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), workers are considered independent contractors, not employees, when the economic reality of their relationship demonstrates that they are in business for themselves. This determination is based on the totality of the circumstances, including the workers' significant operational autonomy, entrepreneurial opportunity to work for others, and substantial personal investment in their business.
Facts:
- Black-car drivers (Plaintiffs) entered into franchise agreements with dispatch base owners (Defendants) to gain access to a dispatch system that connected them with corporate clients.
- Drivers could either purchase a franchise for up to $60,000 or rent one weekly, with different franchise tiers offering different fee structures that impacted a driver's profitability.
- Drivers were solely responsible for providing and maintaining their own vehicles, as well as paying for insurance, fuel, licenses, and other operational expenses.
- The franchise agreements explicitly stated that drivers were independent contractors, not employees.
- The agreements did not prohibit drivers from working for competing dispatch companies or from cultivating their own personal client base, and many drivers earned substantial income from these other sources.
- Drivers had complete autonomy over their work schedules, including when, where, and for how long they worked, and could take vacations for any length of time without providing notice to the Defendants.
- Drivers could accept or reject any job offered through the dispatch system, although rejecting a job resulted in a brief lockout from the system.
- Rulebooks set forth a dress code and standards of conduct, but these rules were enforced by 'Security Committees' composed entirely of elected drivers.
Procedural Posture:
- Mazhar Saleem and other black-car drivers (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Corporate Transportation Group and its affiliates (Defendants).
- The complaint sought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
- The district court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA but denied class certification for the NYLL claims.
- After discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the drivers were independent contractors, and Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment.
- The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that as a matter of law, the drivers were independent contractors and not employees for the purposes of both the FLSA and NYLL.
- Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment on their FLSA claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 black-car drivers who are affiliated with a dispatch service but retain significant operational autonomy properly classified as 'employees' for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Livingston, J.
No. The drivers are properly classified as independent contractors as a matter of law. The court's analysis, grounded in the 'economic reality' of the relationship, shows that the drivers were not economically dependent on the defendants but were operating as independent businesses. The court reasoned that several key factors supported this conclusion: 1) Drivers exercised significant control over their work by setting their own schedules and deciding when, where, and how often to drive. 2) Drivers had meaningful entrepreneurial opportunities, demonstrated by their ability to work for competing services and develop their own clientele, which many did for substantial profit. 3) Drivers made significant personal investments in their businesses, including purchasing franchises, vehicles, and insurance, which is characteristic of independent contractors. 4) The relationship lacked the permanence and exclusivity of traditional employment. Taken together, these facts established that the drivers were 'in business for themselves' and therefore not employees under the FLSA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the employee vs. independent contractor analysis under the FLSA, particularly in the context of franchise and app-based 'gig economy' models. It establishes that even where a central company controls a significant platform for connecting workers to customers, factors like worker autonomy, investment, and the ability to work for competitors are paramount. The ruling emphasizes that the 'economic reality' test is a holistic inquiry, and the presence of genuine entrepreneurial freedom can outweigh a company's control over certain aspects of the business, such as client acquisition and payment processing. This precedent makes it more challenging for workers with similar levels of operational freedom to be classified as employees entitled to FLSA protections like overtime pay.
Unlock the full brief for Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.