Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180531_0000079.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:16:29+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Franco v. Roman's Commercial Cleaning And Property Maintenance, Inc.
Franco v. Roman's Commercial Cleaning And Property Maintenance, Inc.
ROMAN'S COMMERCIAL CLEANING AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, INC.; EAGLE JANITORIAL SERVICES CORP.; ROMAN DROZDOWSKI; LUCIANO A. DESOUZA; and DAVI DESOUZA a.k.a. DAVID SOUZA or DAVID DESOUZA, Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants' Roman's Commercial Cleaning and Property Maintenance, Inc. (“Roman's”), and Roman Drozdowski (“Drozdowski”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 42). Plaintiffs Maximiliano Franco (“Franco”), Baudilio Navarro (“Navarro”), and Walter Salazar (“Salazar”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act (“RIMWA”), R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-12-1, et seq., for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs minimum wage and overtime pay. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Defendants' Motion concerns whether Roman's constitutes a “joint employer” for purposes of Plaintiffs' action. (See Defs.' Mem. of L. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.' Mem.”) 2-3, ECF No. 42-1.) For the reasons set forth below, the answer is no, and Defendants' Motion is therefore GRANTED.
Around the same time that Plaintiffs stopped working, Roman's lost the contracts to clean Stop & Shop and Savers stores because of the poor quality of Eagle's cleaning and the failure of Eagle's employees to report to the stores when scheduled, which Eagle failed to remedy after frequent complaints. (See, e.g., Boda Dep. 14:20-16:6; Skura Dep. 33:22-35:21; Drozdowski Dep. 89:8-91:19, 126:18-128:15; see generally Ex. J to Pls.' Obj. to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 43-12 (no-show emails); Ex. K to Pls.' Obj. to Defs' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 43-13 (complaint emails).) Soon after, in May 2016, Eagle dissolved its business. (Business Entity Summ. 1.) Plaintiffs commenced the present action only days before Eagle's dissolution.
Summary Judgment requires the Court to “tak[e] all the facts in the light most flattering to the nonmoving party, resolv[e] any evidentiary conflicts in that party's favor, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom to his behoof.” Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 670 F.3d 395, 396 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Kuperman v. Wrenn, 645 F.3d 69, 73 (1st Cir. 2011)). “Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Packgen v. BP Expl., Inc., 754 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). In this context, however, the Court “will not ‘draw unreasonable inferences or credit bald assertions, empty conclusions, rank conjecture, or vitriolic invective.'” Garmon v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 844 F.3d 307, 312 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Pina v. Children's Place, 740 F.3d 785, 795 (1st Cir. 2014)).
Under the FLSA, an “employee” is defined as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). An “employer” is defined as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” Id. § 203(d). Furthermore, “employ” is defined as “to suffer or permit to work.” Id. § 203(g). These definitions are to be construed broadly. See Baystate Alt. Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1998). Moreover, the FLSA “contemplates several simultaneous employers, each responsible for compliance with the Act.” Id. (citations omitted).
“[T]o determine whether an employment relationship exists . . . courts look not to the common law conceptions of that relationship, but rather to the ‘economic reality' of the totality of the circumstances bearing on whether the putative employee is economically dependent on the alleged employer.” Id. (citing Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434, 439 (11th Cir. 1994)). Four factors have emerged to test the “economic reality” of the circumstances: “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. (citing Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1983)). “The first two . . . factors address the extent of a putative employer's control over the nature and structure of the working relationship[, ]” while the final two “address the extent of a putative employer's control over the economic aspects of the working relationship[.]” Id. at 675-76. However, “it is the totality of the circumstances, and not any one factor, which determines whether a worker is the employee of a particular alleged employer.” Id. at 676.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 201
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 203
 § 203
 § 203
 v. 
 v. 
 v.