Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Benion v. Lecom, Inc.
Citation: 336 F. Supp. 3d 829Docket: Case Number 15-14367
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan; September 30, 2018; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs, employed as cable television installers, allege misclassification as independent contractors by defendants to evade overtime wages mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the FLSA claim and conditionally certified the case as a collective action. Following the addition of defendants Joseph Lentine and Jeffrey Gendron and the completion of discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment against LeCom, Inc. and LeCom Communications, Inc., as well as against Lentine and Gendron. Conversely, all defendants have sought summary judgment for dismissal. The Court found undisputed facts indicating that the plaintiffs were employees of LeCom Communications, Inc. under the FLSA, but not of LeCom, Inc., leading to the granting of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against LeCom Communications, while LeCom, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was granted. Remaining fact questions preclude summary judgment on other issues, resulting in the denial of the other motions. LeCom Communications was established in 2001 to provide fulfillment services to Michigan cable companies, now owned by Comcast, while LeCom, Inc. was founded in 1980. Both companies, owned by Joseph and Anthony Lentine, operate from separate headquarters in Warren, Michigan, though the plaintiffs argue that LeCom effectively employs and directs the technicians despite the use of subcontractor companies. Lentine asserts that LeCom and LeCom Communications operate as distinct entities, each with separate bank accounts, clientele, employees, insurance policies, vehicle fleets, leadership, and operations. LeCom focuses on utility construction, servicing high-power utility poles under contract with power companies, while LeCom Communications provides cable fulfillment services exclusively for Comcast in Michigan. Since its inception in 2001, Jeff Gendron has managed LeCom Communications's daily operations, reporting to Joseph Lentine, who granted him significant autonomy. Initially serving various smaller cable companies, LeCom Communications became solely reliant on Comcast as its customer since 2007 or 2008. Joseph Lentine and his brother are the sole owners of both corporations, with Lentine serving as president. He has executed Comcast contracts since 2007, noting their non-negotiable nature, which outlined the obligations for technicians. Lentine played a role in drafting subcontractor agreements that allowed LeCom Communications to terminate technicians at will. Despite lacking a background in cable fulfillment, Lentine determined Gendron's salary, reviewed financial statements, and authorized hiring decisions, including those of the plaintiffs as independent contractors. He also approved the installation of GPS in company vehicles and was involved in discussions regarding compensation and workforce management with Gendron. In 2017, Lentine decided to discontinue the cable installation business due to profitability issues, transferring the work to Amcomm and laying off most technicians. Lentine maintained that he did not engage in daily operations, leaving Gendron responsible for subcontractor management, hiring, and operational decisions. Gendron, who previously owned Elite Communications before its acquisition by the Lentine brothers, served as general manager for LeCom Communications from 2001 until November 2017, reporting directly to Lentine. Lentine identifies Gendron as responsible for decisions regarding compensation, hiring, and maintaining employment records for subcontractors. Despite Gendron admitting to firing a technician for unauthorized assistance, he later denied having any authority to hire or fire employees of subcontracting companies, or to define their work hours. He was not an officer or director of LeCom Communications and lacked banking authority, meaning he did not issue checks to subcontractors or plaintiffs. The plaintiffs acknowledge their inability to provide evidence of Gendron's check writing. The defendants assert that the plaintiffs were not true employees of LeCom Communications or its subcontractors but rather independent contractors. Until 2013, most cable installers were classified as employees, but the company then shifted to using 1099 independent contractors. By 2015, approximately 40 out of 502 technicians were classified as independent contractors or subcontractors. LeCom Communications primarily worked with several contracting houses, including Great Link Communication, Erotech, The Buccilli Group, Reynolds Quality Installations, and Detroit Communications Direct, which later became EPIQ. However, the defendants' classifications do not determine employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which aims to challenge rather than uphold contractual arrangements regarding employee classification. Economic realities, rather than contractual definitions, govern employment status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which broadly defines 'employee' to include individuals who may not fit traditional agency law definitions. In evaluating employment classification, particularly in the context of satellite installation technicians, the court employs an 'economic realities' test based on six non-exclusive factors: 1) the permanency of the relationship; 2) the skill level required; 3) the worker's investment in equipment; 4) the potential for profit or loss based on skill; 5) the employer's control over work performance; and 6) whether the service is integral to the employer's business. No single factor is decisive; the overall focus is on whether the individual is economically dependent on the employer. In the current case, discovery reveals that Comcast mandated strict screening for all potential technicians, regardless of their employment status, requiring background checks, drug tests, and other evaluations through LeCom Communications. This included completing a 'LeCom Application for At-Will Employment Form' for background checks. Technicians, even independent contractors, signed contracts with LeCom that stipulated work satisfaction, allowed termination without cause, and included a six-month non-compete clause against working with Comcast in LeCom’s operational areas. After passing screening, technicians received Comcast ID badges and numbers to identify themselves as authorized representatives. Some plaintiffs claimed to have received LeCom IDs, but evidence suggests they were likely referring to Comcast IDs. LeCom Communications was contractually obligated to maintain a warehouse and office for personnel, materials, and tools necessary for cable installation. Independent contractors were generally required to supply their own tools and vehicles, although LeCom provided vehicles for its employee technicians. Technicians received essential tools, which LeCom purchased in bulk and offered to them at a discounted price, deducted from their paychecks. Installation materials were provided daily by LeCom, and technicians did not use personal materials. Training for new hires was mandatory, with those lacking experience required to undergo a week-long classroom course followed by six to eight weeks of practical training alongside experienced technicians. Subcontractors, however, faced less stringent training requirements, often receiving minimal preparation before starting work. Plaintiffs Cleague and Franklin noted they were hired without prior experience and had only brief training. Job assignments were managed by LeCom Communications until November 2015, with technicians reporting each morning for their daily routes and equipment pickup. While technicians were not strictly required to arrive at a specific time, plaintiffs claimed a 7:00 AM start time was expected. LeCom adjusted job assignments based on efficiency and workforce suitability, receiving proposed routes from Comcast without specific technician assignments. Byrd and other supervisors assigned routes to technicians based on various criteria, including skill level and geographic familiarity. LeCom Communications held exclusive authority over route assignments, limiting technicians' ability to select their jobs or areas, though requests for changes were occasionally accommodated. Technicians collected installation equipment from the LeCom warehouse and were informally allowed to run errands or take breaks, provided all jobs were completed on schedule. In November 2015, Comcast implemented the Dynamic Dispatch System (DDS), fundamentally altering route assignment processes. Under DDS, Comcast took over all routing responsibilities, removing LeCom Communications' prior flexibility. Technicians received iPhones for job assignments and were required to continuously update Comcast on their status. Failure to maintain efficiency led Comcast's 'tech accountability' staff to communicate issues to LeCom supervisors, who would then reach out to technicians. Byrd noted that DDS imposed significant pressure on technicians, who had to work nearly continuously during twelve-hour shifts. In response, LeCom managers shifted to a five-day work week, with optional six-day work for technicians. Despite these changes, technicians were still obligated to complete all assigned jobs within the designated time frames and were not permitted to refuse assignments. An example cited involved subcontractor DeAngelo Sutton, who faced suspension after declining a job due to its location. Technicians typically worked ten hours or more daily, with specific time allocations for each job and designated time windows for completion. LeCom Communications dispatchers could assign additional jobs outside of a technician's route, which technicians were compelled to accept due to threats of suspension or termination. Upon finishing their routes, technicians had to call dispatchers or supervisors to receive a 'clear code' indicating no further jobs were available, allowing them to return to the warehouse. Technicians were required to wear uniforms identifying them as representatives of Comcast and LeCom Communications, with subcontractors and independent contractors responsible for purchasing their uniforms and vehicle decals. As part of their agreement, Comcast mandated that LeCom Communications audit at least 10% of completed jobs. Supervisors conducted physical inspections and used Comcast-issued tools for remote assessments. Subcontracting houses had to document their inspections of at least 10% of their work. Independent contractors were not routinely audited unless customer complaints arose, prompting dispatch of another technician to address the issue. Technicians reported that their work was frequently inspected directly by LeCom Communications supervisors. Comcast representatives also audited randomly selected jobs and reported any defects back to LeCom Communications for resolution, sometimes requiring technicians to correct their own or others' mistakes. Technicians were compensated on a per-job basis, with varying rates set by Comcast. Independent contractors and subcontractors received a flat rate per job without eligibility for overtime, while subcontractors were typically paid weekly by their contracting houses. LeCom Communications and DCD/EPIQ W-2 employees were eligible for overtime pay, calculated by dividing the total value of jobs completed during a pay period by the total hours worked, with overtime paid at time-and-a-half for hours exceeding 40 per week. Byrd indicated that LeCom Communications and DCD/EPIC would cover any shortfall between an employee technician's earnings and the minimum wage, despite his claim that technicians seldom earned below that threshold. If Comcast identified a job as 'out of spec' via inspection or remote testing, it would refuse payment to LeCom Communications, which would then hold the responsible technician accountable by deducting the job's pay, unless the technician rectified the issue. There was no appeal process for LeCom Communications against Comcast's payment refusal, nor for technicians disputing pay deductions by LeCom. Plaintiff Damon Franklin, an Erotech subcontractor, claimed he was frequently instructed by LeCom Communications not to receive payment for jobs. Independent contractors were reportedly able to work flexibly from one to seven days a week; however, testimonies from plaintiffs and LeCom Communications management contradicted this, revealing that technicians were effectively required to work six days a week. John Byrd confirmed this requirement, and Jerelle Hannah noted that all technicians, regardless of classification, were expected to report to the LeCom facility on a schedule set by LeCom, which also controlled start times and workdays. Comcast mandated that LeCom Communications provide daily manpower breakdowns, leading to a policy where technicians must request time off through LeCom, which retained the authority to approve or deny such requests. DeAngelo Sutton, an RQI subcontractor, recounted submitting time-off requests using a specific 'LeCom form' at the LeCom warehouse. LeCom had previously distributed forms for various administrative purposes, although Jeff Gendron later advised contracting houses to stop using these forms and create their own in accordance with the Comcast Master Agreement. Plaintiffs allege that LeCom Communications consistently denied time off requests from subcontractors, providing specific examples, such as Leslie Morgan's initial denial for additional days off, which was later reversed after persistence. Similarly, Raphael Sutton's request through LeCom was denied. An additional case cited involves Harry Benion, whose time off request was denied by The Buccilli Group, although LeCom's involvement is unsubstantiated. Technicians were organized into 'territory teams' supervised by LeCom managers, encompassing employees, independent contractors, and subcontractors. Mandatory performance meetings were held at LeCom's warehouse, where managers reviewed performance metrics and suggested improvements. Plaintiff Cleague reported threats of termination from managers during these meetings, and attendance was enforced, with Morgan facing suspension for non-attendance. Weekly meetings involved territory team leaders and contracting house representatives discussing technician performance, with managers, including Jay Gendron, making decisions on employment actions such as terminations and pay adjustments. Team leader DeAngelo Sutton testified that Gendron frequently discussed specific subcontractors' performances and made direct termination requests. LeCom initiated the 'MIDAS Program,' an incentive initiative categorizing technicians into mixed teams of employees and subcontractors, rewarding top performers with monthly bonuses. Byrd, a team manager, noted multiple iterations of the program, reflecting different team structures and participation criteria. Technicians were required to attend regular weekly meetings and occasional meetings for the MIDAS program. Harry Benion and DeAngelo Sutton, former employee technicians at LeCom Communications, returned as subcontractors after a year and reported identical supervision, schedules, and duties under both classifications. Plaintiff Allen Cleague, who worked as a subcontractor for RQI and later as an employee for DCD/EPIQ, experienced similar supervision and work requirements regardless of his employment status. In April 2016, LeCom Communications announced that starting May 2016, it would only employ W-2 technicians directly and would no longer collaborate with contracting houses using subcontractors. Jeff Gendron stated that this decision was made internally by LeCom Communications, with no input from Comcast, and that owner Joseph Lentine was informed but not involved. Currently, there are six motions for summary judgment pending, with plaintiffs seeking liability determinations against all defendants while each defendant seeks dismissal. Summary judgment can be granted if the moving party demonstrates no genuine dispute regarding material facts, entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. The court must review all evidence in favor of the non-moving party to determine if the case requires jury submission or if one party clearly prevails. The moving party must establish the basis for their motion and highlight parts of the record showing no genuine factual dispute. The opposing party must present specific facts through affidavits or depositions to show evidence that could lead a jury to find in their favor, rather than relying on mere speculation about the facts. Summary: Summary judgment is appropriate when the non-moving party fails to meet their burden of proof after adequate discovery. Genuine issues of material fact do not arise from irrelevant or unnecessary disputes, with "material" facts being those that affect the lawsuit's outcome, determined by substantive law. An issue is "genuine" if a reasonable jury could favor the non-moving party. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the base pay for hours exceeding 40 in a week. The FLSA is intended to be broadly interpreted to serve its humanitarian purpose. An "employer" is defined as any person acting in the interest of an employer concerning an employee, and an "employee" is any individual employed by an employer. The definition of "employ" encompasses anyone permitted to work, indicating a broad coverage of employees. To assess the employer-employee relationship under the FLSA, courts apply an "economic realities" test, which is not rigid but requires a case-by-case analysis of the business relationship. In this context, the plaintiffs acknowledge that LeCom, Inc. does not qualify as their employer under the FLSA but argue for joint employer status due to its connections with LeCom Communications, including common ownership. Both the economic realities test and the joint employment test may serve as bases for determining employer responsibility under the FLSA for overtime wages. The Sixth Circuit outlines four factors to assess joint employer status: interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership. In the case at hand, LeCom, Inc. contends it is distinct from LeCom Communications, claiming none of the factors for joint employer status are met, as it operates a separate utility business unrelated to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue for a connection based on shared email domains, websites, and Lentine's dual role as president of both companies, asserting he made key compensation decisions. However, unless LeCom, Inc. is deemed a "sham" corporation, mere common ownership does not suffice to establish joint employer status. There is no evidence that LeCom, Inc. was improperly formed, as it lacks hiring or firing authority over the plaintiffs, and the evidence does not support joint employer findings. Consequently, LeCom, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted, while the plaintiffs' motion against it is denied. As for LeCom Communications, the plaintiffs acknowledge working for it, but the defendant claims that subcontractor agreements negate employee status. The court clarifies that contractual terms do not solely dictate employment status. The undisputed facts indicate that LeCom Communications is liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court finds that the economic realities test supports LeCom Communications' joint employer qualification, thus not requiring further discussion on this alternate liability theory. The test for determining employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) evaluates whether a worker is economically dependent on a principal or operates independently. Key considerations include the permanency of the relationship, where independent contractors typically have transient arrangements, while employees have ongoing, indefinite relationships with a single employer. If a worker has multiple jobs across different companies, this supports an independent contractor classification. In the case of Keller, the court noted that a jury could view the plaintiff as an employee, as he never declined job assignments and felt he could be terminated for refusal. Factors such as the worker's lack of control over job aspects, including customer location and availability, were significant. There is a dispute regarding the plaintiffs' work schedules. Defendant Gendron claimed that independent contractors had flexible schedules, while plaintiffs testified they were required to work six days a week without the option to refuse assignments due to fear of discipline or termination. Multiple declarations from plaintiffs support their requirement to work six days weekly, contradicting the defendant's assertions. Additionally, while the defendants pointed to plaintiff Morgan's formation of an LLC, his testimony indicated he primarily provided services to LeCom Communications under a subcontractor agreement, not working for other companies while engaged with LeCom. Morgan's formation of LeCom Communications does not negate the plaintiffs' claims that technicians lacked opportunities to seek alternative employment. The defendants argue, without substantiation, that plaintiffs Benion, Goodgall, and Franklin did not file taxes for several years, which complicates the determination of their income sources; however, this lack of evidence does not fulfill the defendants' summary judgment burden. Evidence indicates that the plaintiffs had little time for outside work, with expectations of 60 to 90 hours per week. Although Gendron suggested that the plaintiffs could work elsewhere, the demands of their roles restricted such opportunities. LeCom Communications contends that plaintiffs were permitted to work for other companies, citing Goodgall's prior subcontractor role, yet his testimony does not clarify concurrent employment with other firms. Similarly, Benion's transition from Erotech to Buccilli Group does not imply simultaneous employment with multiple companies. Disputes exist regarding the start time for technicians, but it was no later than 8:30 a.m., with LeCom providing job lists to be completed within specific timeframes. While supervisors occasionally overlooked personal errands, the implementation of Comcast’s Dynamic Dispatch System severely limited break times for technicians working twelve-hour shifts. Technicians were required to remain on duty until receiving a "clear code" indicating no further jobs, faced frequent denials of time off, and could be dismissed at any moment. The court precedent in Hollis v. Dump Cable, Inc. supports the notion that such exclusivity points to an employer-employee relationship, favoring the classification of the technicians as employees of LeCom Communications. The assessment of skill required for services rendered indicates that skills are not exclusive to independent contractors; rather, the inquiry focuses on whether an individual's profits are attributable to their initiative and judgment, or if their work resembles piecework. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit emphasizes the significance of how a worker acquires their skills, noting that independent contractors typically obtain relevant skills through formal education, apprenticeships, or extensive experience. A worker's classification as an employee is influenced by the length of training and the provision of necessary skills by the company. The Sixth Circuit's ruling in Keller established that while a technician's skill may enhance efficiency, it does not solely determine their employment status. The defendant claims that independent contractors at LeCom Communications are more skilled than employee-technicians, yet the job assignment system used by Comcast, based on estimated completion times rather than actual skill, raises questions about this assertion. Cable installation is recognized as a skilled trade, but the evidence indicates that LeCom Communications hired installers without prior experience and facilitated their training through a two-week course followed by six to eight weeks of supervised work. Subcontractors were expected to send experienced technicians, but limited training was reported by subcontractors' employees. The predominant acquisition of skills on the job supports the view of the plaintiffs as employees. To assess economic independence, courts compare a worker's investment in equipment to the company's overall investment. Significant investments in specialized equipment generally indicate greater independence. In this case, while the defendants argue that unique tools are necessary for cable installation, LeCom Communications provided these tools, which technicians purchased at a discount, resulting in minimal upfront costs for the plaintiffs. This arrangement further suggests an employee classification. LeCom Communications provided employees with tools and transportation, while independent contractors and subcontractors were responsible for their own tools and transportation, with some plaintiffs receiving vehicles from their subcontractors. LeCom supplied all installation materials and maintained a warehouse, but the record lacks detailed cost comparisons between parties. It is inferred that defendants likely incurred higher expenses in equipment and warehouse rentals compared to plaintiffs' minimal tool investments. Previous court cases indicated varying interpretations of cost factors, but overall, the current facts slightly favor the plaintiffs. Regarding workers' profit or loss opportunities, it is established that Comcast directed LeCom Communications to assign routes daily, and LeCom supervisors allocated tasks based on skill, experience, and geography. With the implementation of the Dynamic Dispatch System, Comcast took full control over job assignments, which technicians were required to complete within specific timeframes, without the option to refuse assignments. Technicians also faced limitations in hiring assistants due to LeCom's screening processes. Although subcontractors could complete work efficiently to increase revenue, their assignments were rigidly structured, dictating their work hours and pay, which was determined solely by LeCom and Comcast's established rates. Contrary to the defendants' claims, the technicians' work pace did not enhance their earning potential. Opportunities for bonus pay existed through the MIDAS Program, initially available to all technicians but restricted to employee technicians by its third iteration, thereby excluding independent contractors and subcontractors. LeCom Communications had a practice of deducting pay from technicians for unsatisfactory work or missing equipment, which courts interpret as indicative of employee status. The plaintiffs had minimal control over their assignments and schedules, being required to work at least six days a week with fixed routes assigned by LeCom Communications. Their preferences for job types or locations were largely ignored, and they could not finish their work until receiving a "clear code." Requests for time off were subject to LeCom Communications’ approval, and leave forms were mandated to bear the company's name. Technicians were also required to wear uniforms identifying them as representatives of Comcast and LeCom Communications, and display the Comcast logo on their vehicles, reinforcing the employer's control. LeCom maintained supervisory authority, including the power to terminate contracts and enforce a non-compete clause for six months post-termination. Courts have found similar circumstances indicative of employee status. LeCom Communications conducted regular inspections of the plaintiffs' work and penalized them financially for not meeting Comcast standards. All technicians were mandated to attend performance meetings under threat of discipline, a requirement undisputed by the defendants, contrasting with the case of Swinney, where meeting attendance was contested. If LeCom compelled meeting attendance, threatened termination, and imposed penalties for absences, this could support a finding of an employee-employer relationship. Additionally, LeCom supervisors held weekly meetings to make employment decisions based on technician performance, maintaining strict control over technicians who needed permission for assistance or changes to work orders, unlike the autonomy seen in Keller, where the technician had more freedom. The defendants argued that LeCom's control was typical in the industry and should not factor into the analysis of the employment relationship. They cited Herman v. Mid-Atlantic Installation Services, asserting that compliance with Comcast’s specifications reflected standard contractor duties. However, this perspective has been challenged in other cases, such as Scantland, which emphasized that the economic reality of control should be the focus rather than the reasons for that control. The court in Scantland indicated that extensive control necessitates an employer-employee relationship rather than an independent contractor one. During oral arguments, defense counsel claimed LeCom lacked the authority to terminate the plaintiffs, referencing Gendron's declaration. However, this assertion contradicted evidence from LeCom's subcontractor agreement and testimony from DeAngelo Sutton, who recalled Gendron ordering the termination of subcontractor-technicians. Sutton's testimony also indicated that Gendron had interfered with termination decisions. Furthermore, Byrd was responsible for tracking performance metrics for all technicians, regardless of their classification as independent contractors. Byrd indicated that he provided real-time performance data to the field to monitor failing technology, which was discussed in weekly management meetings. All technicians were treated uniformly by Comcast, regardless of classification. Evidence showed that LeCom Communications exercised extensive control over how plaintiffs received assignments and executed their work, favoring the plaintiffs' position. The court assessed whether the services provided were integral to LeCom Communications' business, concluding that the technicians were essential for daily cable installation, thus indicating an employer-employee relationship. The plaintiffs were critical to LeCom’s operations, which solely focused on fulfillment services for cable companies. Additional considerations included LeCom’s authority to hire or fire plaintiffs and maintain their employment records. LeCom had the authority to terminate plaintiffs without cause, and plaintiffs operated under the threat of termination for unsatisfactory performance. Regular performance reviews and documentation by LeCom further established a level of control indicative of an employer-employee relationship. Given the undisputed facts, the court determined that the plaintiffs were employees of LeCom Communications, leading to the granting of their motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Regarding individual liability, Lentine and Gendron contended they were not the plaintiffs' employers under the FLSA, relying on precedent to support their claims. However, the evidence was inconclusive, leaving room for a jury to decide. The FLSA recognizes multiple employers can be liable for compliance, and corporate officers with operational control can be jointly and severally liable for unpaid wages, as established in relevant case law. Corporate officers with substantial ownership interests and operational control over significant functions of a corporation, including employee compensation, can qualify as “employers” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It is emphasized that no single factor is decisive in determining employer status, and exclusive control is not required; delegation of duties does not preclude an individual from being classified as an employer. In the case of Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, the Second Circuit highlighted that an individual must have a degree of involvement in the company's interactions with employees to be considered an FLSA employer. Evidence of ownership or decision-making unrelated to employee functions is insufficient for establishing employer status; actual operational control related to employment is necessary. Jeffrey Gendron argues that he does not meet the criteria for employer status, citing his lack of ownership interest, officer position, and control over LeCom Communications’ operations. He asserts he had no authority over finances or personnel decisions, and the plaintiffs did not view him as their employer. However, the plaintiffs contest this, referencing Gendron’s deposition and documents indicating that he was perceived as the primary authority within the company, thus challenging his claims of a lack of operational involvement. Gendron conducted weekly meetings with LeCom Communications managers to evaluate technicians' performance and recommended disciplinary actions such as termination or pay docking, irrespective of employment status. Lentine testified that Gendron effectively controlled LeCom's operations, including hiring, firing, and compensation, undermining Gendron's attempt to distinguish his role from that of the defendant in Donovan v. Sabine Irrigation Co. Inc., where the court recognized the defendant's employer status due to his extensive control over business operations. The court also noted that self-serving claims of non-involvement were discounted. While the plaintiffs' evidence does not definitively prove Gendron's employer status, it suggests that his significant involvement in operations cannot be ignored. Lentine claimed he had not been involved in day-to-day operations since 2001, asserting that Gendron was solely responsible for compensation and subcontracting decisions. Lentine also stated he had no role in hiring or disciplining employees. Despite Lentine's attempts to distance himself from operational control, the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to challenge his claims of non-involvement. The conflicting testimonies of Gendron and Lentine prevent a summary judgment for either party. Plaintiffs assert they responded timely to Lentine's requests for admissions, denying many of his claims. Lentine acknowledged regular meetings with Gendron since 2001 regarding LeCom Communications's finances and contracts with Comcast, which he has signed since 2007. Evidence shows Lentine, as president and owner, signed payroll checks and approved hiring the plaintiffs as independent contractors. While Gendron had hiring and firing authority, Lentine had the potential to exert similar control. He also decided to terminate business with Comcast in 2017. Emails from 2015 and 2016 reveal Lentine's active involvement in company operations, discussing chargebacks, bonuses, and service agreements with Comcast. Case law cited by Lentine suggests that summary judgment should not favor him. In Fegley v. Higgins, the Sixth Circuit found a CEO personally liable under the FLSA due to significant ownership and operational control. Although Lentine claims minimal involvement, he admitted responsibility for securing Comcast contracts, contradicting his assertion that Gendron managed all operations. United States of Labor v. Cole Enterprises, Inc. reiterated that a CEO with substantial control qualifies as an employer under the FLSA. The court noted operational control through check issuance, employment record custody, and payroll management. The evidence does not conclusively support either party's position, and Gray v. Powers is distinguishable due to a lack of evidence regarding the individual defendant's authority. Employer status can be inferred through operational control linked to a person's role as a shareholder, officer, or owner; however, mere status does not establish a genuine issue of fact regarding the ability to hire or fire employees. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting additional factors necessary for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' legal arguments were insufficiently developed and did not convincingly advocate for their position. Various cases were cited, illustrating that operational control must be evidenced by direct supervisory responsibilities, such as involvement in hiring and employee compensation decisions. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that an officer must either engage in daily operations or have direct supervisory responsibilities to qualify as an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A majority shareholder's lack of involvement in employee supervision or hiring negated their employer status, and unutilized authority does not establish liability. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not rely on Lentine's potential authority to demonstrate operational control. While exclusive control is not necessary for employer status, the ambiguity surrounding Lentine's involvement led to the denial of both parties' motions for summary judgment. Regarding the statute of limitations, the defendants argued that there was no evidence of willfulness to warrant an extension, asserting that they were unaware of overtime violations. The plaintiffs countered that prior violations at LeCom Communications should have alerted the defendants to their obligations under the FLSA. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants' prior knowledge of FLSA requirements indicates a reckless disregard for the statute, which supports a finding of willfulness in their alleged violations. Under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a), claims for unpaid overtime can be initiated within two years, or three years if the violation is deemed willful. A willful violation occurs when an employer knows or shows reckless disregard for the legality of their actions, as established in relevant case law. The plaintiffs draw parallels to the case of Dole, where the Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants acted willfully after being previously investigated for FLSA violations and having made assurances of future compliance. In the current case, Gendron testified about a 2004-2005 DOL investigation into LeCom Communications for failure to pay overtime. Although LeCom revised its policy for employees to comply with the FLSA, it did not apply this policy to independent contractors starting in 2013, claiming subcontractors were responsible for overtime payments. The court found that these circumstances did not mitigate the defendants’ responsibility, as the misclassification of workers is central to the case. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment for liability against LeCom Communications, while dismissing claims against LeCom, Inc. and denying summary judgments for individual defendants Lentine and Gendron due to outstanding factual questions. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment against various defendants were granted in part and denied in part, with the amended complaint dismissed with prejudice against LeCom, Inc. only.