Opinion ID: 77326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Engaged in the Production of Goods for Commerce

Text: 19 Thorne argues he was individually covered under the FLSA not only because he was engaged in commerce, but also because his restoration work was directly essential to the production of goods in commerce. Employees whose work is closely related and directly essential to the production of goods for commerce are individually covered under the FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 776.18 (2005). Congress has indicated that individual coverage under the FLSA includes even maintenance employees of an independent employer who performs work directly essential to producers of commerce. 29 C.F.R. § 776.18(b). Typical of the employees in this covered group are those who repair or maintain the machinery or buildings used by the producer in his production of goods for commerce and employees of a security force that protects the producer's premises. Id. For example, in Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 518-526, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, (1942), the Supreme Court held that certain maintenance employees of a clothing manufacturer were covered under FLSA because there was such a close and immediate tie with the process of production for commerce. Id. 20 In contrast, employees of independent contractors which provided local services such as window cleaning, lawn maintenance, and pest control are not included as employees doing work closely related to production merely because the customers of the employer happen to include producers of goods for commerce. 29 C.F.R. § 776.19(b)(5). For example, employees of a local exterminator service firm who worked wholly within the state exterminating pests in private homes and in buildings used to produce goods for interstate commerce are not individually covered under FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 776.19(b)(5). 21 Similar to a local exterminator service firm, ARS was a local service firm that performed mold and water restoration of residential and commercial buildings entirely intrastate. Testimony at trial showed that a minority of ARS's clients were commercial businesses. 3 The Court is not convinced that Thorne's water restoration work for a few commercial businesses constitutes work directly essential to the production of goods for interstate commerce. Rather, testimony showed that ARS was primarily a local service provider, whose services had little effect on commercial establishments, let alone the production of goods for commerce. 4 Accordingly, the Court finds that the district court properly granted Defendants/Appellees' Rule 50 motion.