{"id":1224,"date":"2024-02-20T19:39:09","date_gmt":"2024-02-20T23:39:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1224"},"modified":"2024-02-21T09:06:47","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T13:06:47","slug":"eleventh-circuit-holds-nissan-is-not-joint-employer-of-florida-dealership-technicians-in-wage-hour-class-and-collective-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/02\/20\/eleventh-circuit-holds-nissan-is-not-joint-employer-of-florida-dealership-technicians-in-wage-hour-class-and-collective-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Eleventh Circuit Holds Nissan Is Not Joint Employer Of Florida Dealership Technicians In Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Nicolette J. Zulli<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/i><\/b>In Ayala v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 23-11027, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2965 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld<\/a> a District Court\u2019s decision granting Nissan\u2019s motion for summary judgment in a wage & hour class and collective action. It held that none of the eight factors for determining joint employment weighed in favor of the company. The Eleventh Circuit further affirmed the District Court\u2019s denial of both Rule 23 class action certification and conditional certification of the collective action under the FLSA.<\/i><\/p>\n

The Eleventh Circuit\u2019s opinion offers a treasure trove of insights regarding the crucial joint employer issue \u2014 particularly for employers who operate in a business-partnership dynamic where one entity (e.g., a manufacturer or staffing company) maintains oversight and\/or indirect influence over the employees of the other entity (e.g., a car dealership or contractor) that handles payroll and\/or hiring and firing processes<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Two automotive service employees (\u201cTechnicians\u201d) working at Florida Nissan dealerships filed suit against Nissan, alleging violations of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (\u201cFMWA\u201d), for failure to pay wages as required by law. Id. <\/i>at *3. <\/b>They also sought conditional certification as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b), as well as certification of a class action under Rule 23.<\/p>\n

The Technicians alleged they performed vehicle repair and maintenance on behalf of Nissan at the dealerships but were not compensated as required by law. Id. <\/i>Specifically, they pointed to Nissan\u2019s Assurance Products Resource Manual (\u201cAPRM\u201d) and Dealership Agreements, which determined how much Nissan paid dealerships for warranty work conducted by technicians, regardless of how long the work took. \u00a0Pursuant to the APRM and the Dealership Agreements, Nissan agreed with each dealership to reimburse the dealership according to the \u201cflat-rate\u201d system. Id. <\/i>at *<\/i>3.<\/p>\n

The Technicians argued that \u2014 when the warranty work took longer than the \u201cflat-rate time\u201d determined by Nissan, thus limiting Nissan\u2019s reimbursement to the dealership \u2014 the result is that they were underpaid by the dealership. Id.<\/i> at *4. As a result, the Technicians asserted that Nissan was a joint employer, which Nissan opposed. The District Court agreed with Nissan and granted its motion for summary judgment. The Technicians appealed. Id.<\/i> at *2.<\/p>\n

The Eleventh\u2019s Circuit\u2019s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court\u2019s order granting summary judgment and denying class certification under Rule 23 and conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b). Id.<\/i> at *20.<\/i><\/p>\n

On appeal, the Technicians argued that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment, because it failed to consider all admissible record evidence that they presented. Id.<\/i> at *2. They further argued that the District Court erred in denying their motions for certification. First, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the Technicians\u2019 argument that summary judgment was improper, after applying the eight-factor test under Layton v. DHL Express<\/i> (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012), which is guided by five principles that are focused on indicators of \u201ceconomic dependence,\u201d for evaluating whether an employment relationship exists under the FLSA. These factors include: <\/i>(1) The nature and degree of control of the workers; (2) The degree of supervision, direct or indirect, of the work; (3) The power to determine the pay rates or the methods of payment of the workers; (4) The right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire, or modify the employment conditions of the workers; (5) Preparation of the payroll and payment of wages; (6) Ownership of the facilities where work occurred; (7) Performance of a specialty job integral to the asserted joint employer\u2019s business; (8) The relative investments of the asserted joint employer in equipment and facilities used by the workers. Id.<\/i> at *6-7. <\/i><\/p>\n

The Eleventh Circuit held that none of these factors weighed in favor of a finding that Nissan was a joint employer of the Technicians. Id.<\/i> at *22. Its analysis greatly emphasized the Technicians\u2019 (i) failure to identify any specific, substantive content in Nissan\u2019s 233-page APRM or its Anomalous Repair Control Program, and (ii) their reliance on conclusory and uncorroborated allegations in declarations and affidavits. The Eleventh Circuit opined that this was \u00a0insufficient to show the District Court failed to consider relevant evidence. Id. <\/i>at *8, *16. <\/i>The Eleventh Circuit relied primarily upon a comparison to its prior decisions in Layton<\/i>, Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms<\/i>, 20 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 1994), and Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion Int\u2019l Corp.<\/i>, 340 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2003), ultimately concluding that the relevant factors in this case weigh more heavily against joint employment. Id.<\/i> at *18.<\/p>\n

The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the Technicians\u2019 argument that the District Court erred in denying both certification of a class action under Rule 23 and conditional certification of a collective action under \u00a7 216(b). The Eleventh Circuit opined that the putative class members would be employed by different dealers, making the inquiries about their pay \u201chighly individualized and unwieldy.\u201d Id.<\/i> at *23. This, in turn, meant that the employees would not be similarly situated (as required for a collective action under the FLSA) and that there would not be sufficient common facts (as required for a class action under Rule 23). Id.<\/i><\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

The Ayala<\/i> decision is notable in that it offers a novel glimpse into the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s approach to construing the language of employer policies to determine joint-employer status. To that end, the decision not only calls for employers to assess their business relationships to those it considers employees versus contractors, but also highlights the importance of constructing written policies and procedures with an eye toward the eight factors used to determine joint employer status.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Nicolette J. Zulli Duane Morris Takeaways: In Ayala v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 23-11027, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2965 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld a District Court\u2019s decision granting Nissan\u2019s motion for summary judgment in a wage & hour class … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds Nissan Is Not Joint Employer Of Florida Dealership Technicians In Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1224"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}