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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more