Skip to main content

Governmental Regulation Alone Does Not Create an Employer-Employee Relationship



Callahan v. City of Chicago - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Between January 2009 and August 2011, Melissa Callahan ("Callahan") drove a taxi in Chicago.  Although Callahan did not own her own taxi or medallion (that authorizes the driver to operate a taxi in Chicago), she leased them.  According to Callahan, her net proceeds averaged less than the minimum wage.  

Callahan brought an FLSA claim against the City of Chicago ("City") on the grounds that the City must make up the difference.  (For purposes of this analysis, we will look at her second reasoning why the City should be liable:  The City's regulations on taxi drivers were so extensive, the City must be treated as her employer.

At the lower court level, summary judgment was granted in the City's favor as to Callahan's minimum wage claims on the grounds that the City was not her employer simply by acting as a regulator.  

Holding:  The Court of Appeals began its analysis with the definition of "employ" and noted that the City permitted Callahan to drive her cab.  Callahan argued there was evidence that taxis were a vital part to the city operating (by way of taking people to/from the airports, driving them to restaurants, movies, shows, etc) and because the City gained from having taxis operating, the City was every taxi driver's employer and therefore subject to the FLSA.  

The Court dismissed this argument as an "extravagant claim" on the grounds that restaurants, retail shops, hotels, and hospitals, among other enterprises were vital to the city and would therefore have to be afforded FLSA protections.

As for the fact that the City regulated the taxi industry, that alone was found to not create an employer-employee relationship.  Even viewed in the harshest context, even if the City's regulations were found to be extensive, that does not make the government an employer of a regulated party.

Judgment:  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago on the grounds that the fact that the City regulated the taxi industry did not make it an employer of Callahan and therefore subject to the FLSA.

The Takeaway:  This was one of the more interesting cases I have come across in regard to FLSA issues in recent memory.  Callahan's argument that because the City of Chicago heavily regulated the taxi industry, an employer-employee relationship was created, was a novel argument.  I do not recall having seen this type of argument in the FLSA context before.  

With that being said, as novel as the argument was, I think the Court got this one right.  The simple fact that the government regulates an industry should not result in an employer-employee relationship being formed.  Think of it this way:  The Court was wise to point out that if this were the case, other industries (such as hotels, retail, etc) that are regulated by the government could be subject to FLSA claims by workers in those industries.  This is a slippery slope argument that is actually realistic.  The big takeaway here:  Governmental regulation alone does not create an employer-employee relationship!

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Easterbrook

Date:  February 17, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/CallahanChicago021716.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more