Summary
This United States District Court order denies both the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and the defendant's motion in limine. Regarding the summary judgment motion, the court finds genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the defendant qualifies as an "employer" under the Fair Labor Standards Act's economic reality test. The motion in limine is denied solely because it was filed after the scheduling order deadline. The court will allow the defendant to raise evidentiary objections at trial instead.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendant is a qualified employer under the FLSA for purposes of the plaintiffs' wage claim.
- Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their FLSA claim.
- Whether Defendant's motion in limine was filed timely.
Holdings
- Defendant is not a qualified employer under the FLSA; therefore Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on their wage claim.
- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied.
- Defendant's motion in limine is denied as untimely.
Key quotations
“The Eleventh Circuit imposes an economic reality test to evaluate whether someone is an employer under the FLSA. Villarreal v. Woodham, 113 F.3d 202, 205 (11th Cir. 1997). The inquiry asks, “whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.” Id.; Santos v. Cuba Tropical, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“No single factor is dispositive. Instead, the economic reality test encompasses the totality of the circumstances, no one of which is exclusive.”)”
Factual background
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Louis Sitaras failed to pay them wages owed for periods between July 2023 and January 2024. They contended that Defendant was a qualified employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that the economic reality test should be applied to determine employer status.
Procedural history
The district court considered the parties' motions, oppositions, and replies. No appeal had been taken; the order resolves the pending motions.