No$.14-1430$

Keller v$.$ Miri Microsystems

Page $2$

OPINION

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Miri Microsystems, LLC $("$Miri$")$ is a satellite$-$internet$-$dish installation company. Michael Keller installed satelliteinternet dishes for Miri's customers six days each week. Keller alleges that Miri did not compensate him adequately as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act of $1938("$FLSA$"),29$ U$.$S$.$C$.$ $$$207$ et seq, by failing to pay him overtime compensation. Miri contends, in contrast, that Keller was an independent contractor, rather than an employee, and therefore not entitled to overtime pay.

The FLSA's definition of "employec" is strikingly broad and "stretches the meaning of 'employee' to cover some parties who might not qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency law principles." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co$.$ v$.$ Darden, $503$ U$.$S$.318,326.(1992).$ To effect Congress's broad purpose, we must look to see whether a worker, even when labeled as an "independent contractor," is$,$ as a matter of "economic reality," an employee. Rutherford Food Corp. v$.$ McComb, $331$ U$.$S$.722,729(1947)("$Where the work done, in its essence, follows the usual path of an employee, putting on an 'independent contractor' label does not take the worker from the protection of the Act."$).$ Ordinarily, it is the court's job to determine whether a company has inappropriately classified a worker as an independent contractor. Werner v$.$ Bell Family Med. Ctr$.,$ Inc., $529$ F$.$ App'x $541,543(6$th Cir. $2013).$ However, when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reveals that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor, then summary judgment is inappropriate. See Imars v$.$ Contractors Mfg$.$ Servs. Inc., No$.97-3543,165$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $27,1998$ WL $598778,$ at $*6(6$th Cir. Aug. $24,1998).$ In those cases, it is the task of the trier of fact to review the evidence and weigh the factors to decide whether the plaintiff$-$worker is economically dependent upon the defendant$-$company. See Id$.$ We believe that this is just such a case.

We also must decide whether Keller has offered sufficient evidence that he worked more than forty hours each week based on his and Miri's deposition testimony. We believe that Keller