No$.14-1430$

Keller v$.$ Miri Microsystems

Page $5$

status was an issue for a jury to resolve$).$ We must therefore decide whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Keller was an employee such that summary judgment is inappropriate.

B$.$ Employee Status

Congress passed the FLSA with broad remedial intent. See Powell v$.$ U$.$S$.$ Cartridge Co$,339$ U$.$S$.497,509-11,515(1950)("[$T$]$he primary purpose of Congress $...$ was to eliminate, as rapidly as practicable, substandard labor conditions throughout the nation."$).$ The FLSA aimed to "correct "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well$-$being of workers $...."$ Donovan v$.$ Brandel, $736$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $1114,1116(6$th Cir. $1984)($quoting Dunlop v$.$ Carriage Carpet Co$,548$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $139,143(6$th Cir. $1977)).$ "The FLSA requires $....$ employers to pay employees engaged in commerce a wage consistent with the minimum wage," Ellington, $689$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d at $552($citing $29$ U$.$S$.$C$.$ $$206(a)),$ and instructs employers to pay employees overtime compensation, which must be no less than one$-$and$-$one$-$half times the regular rate of pay, if the employee works more than forty hours in a weck. Id$.($citing Baden$-$Wintenwod v$.$ Life Tine Fitness, Inc, $566$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $618,626(6$th Cir. $2009)).$ Courts interpreting the FLSA must consider Congress's remedial purpose. See Lilley, $958$ F$.2d$ at $750.$

Under the FLSA, only employees are entitled to overtime and minimum$-$wage compensation. See Ellington, $689$ F $3$d at $553.$ Independent contractors do not enjoy FLSA's protections. See Rutherford, $331$ U$.$S$.$ at $729.$ The Supreme Court has recognized, however, that businesses are liable to workers for overtime wages even if the company "put$[$s$]...$ an "independent contractor" label" on a worker whose duties "follow$[]$ the usual path of an employee." Rutherford, $331$ U$.$S$.$ at $729.$ To carry out the remedial purpose of the FLSA, we must examine whether a business has misclassified an employee as an independent contractor.

The FLSA defines an "employee" as "any individual employed by an employer." $29$ U$.$S$.$C$.203($e$)(1).$ According to the FLSt$,"[$e$]$mploy$\text{'}$ includes to suffer or permit to work" Id$.203($g$).$ We have interpreted this frumework, in light of the legislative purpose, to set forth a standard that $""$employees are those who as a matter of economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they render service." Brandel, $736$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d at $1116($quoting Carriage