In an important decision for the advancement of employee rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), on September 11, 2014, the Southern District of New York granted Defendant United States Tennis Association’s summary judgment motion finding that the Plaintiff umpires at the US Open were independent contractors rather than employees. Meyer v. United States Tennis Association, Nos.11 -06268 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2014).
On April 25, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, and after extensive class certification and merits discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Steven Meyer, Marc Bell, Larry Mulligan-Gibbs, and Aimee Johnson all worked as umpires during the US Open, one of the four “Grand Slam” tennis tournaments that takes place annually over a period of 3 weeks in later August and early September. Tennis umpires, who serve as either the chair umpire or one of several line umpires during a match, decide “questions of fact” and “questions of law,” having discretion on calls ranging from line calls (whether the ball is in or out), player conduct warnings/penalties, and whether to suspend a match due to weather conditions. Umpires would apply to Defendant to work, and if accepted, umpires would then work according to their availability.
The Court acknowledged that the crucial issue to decide was whether tennis umpires are employees under the FLSA and NYLL. The Court used the “economic reality” test for the FLSA and the Bynog factors for the NYLL to determine that Plaintiffs are independent contractors under both. Under the FLSA, the “economic reality” test looks at several factors: (1) degree of control – the Court found that umpires had full discretion over calls during the match and were free to decline the offer to officiate each year, could and did officiate other non-UTSA tennis tournaments, and chose which days to work, all of which weigh in favor independent contractors; (2) worker’s opportunity for profit/loss – the Court found this factor weighed equally to both because although Defendants invested far more in the US Open than Plaintiffs did in officiating, Plaintiffs still invested in their level of certification which determined the amount they made per match, resulting in losses some years and profits in others; (3) degree of skill and independent initiative required – this clearly pointed in favor of Defendants and Plaintiffs did not dispute that they had a high degree of skill and independent initiative; (4) permanency and duration of the employment relationship – the Court pointed out that Plaintiffs maintained other non-umpiring jobs and served as umpires in several associations in addition to having the option of whether or not to apply each year, thus finding this leaned in favor of independent contractor; (5) extent to which workers are “integral” to employer’s business – the Court found this leaned in favor of the employee-employer relationship since no match has been played at the US Open without an umpire present since at least 2005. The Court held that the totality of the circumstances revealed that Plaintiffs were independent contractors. Furthermore, under the NYLL, the Court used the Bynog factors to determine that Plaintiffs worked at their own convenience, were free to engage in other jobs, did not receive fringe benefits, were not on the USTA’s payroll, had no fixed schedule, and claimed they were independent contractors on their income tax returns.
The Employment Lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer frequently represent employees who have been misclassified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Please contact us at (212) 300-0375 to schedule a free consultation to further discuss your rights. For more information, please visit our website, www.fslawfirm.com.