Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen case brief notes
*This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
*This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
- Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen (7C 1987)
- Court must decide if migrant pickle workers are EEs under FLSA.
- Court does not use the same “right to control” test from Darden.
- FLSA defines EE different from ERISA – to employ means “suffer or permit to work.”
- This definition and the remedial purpose behind the statute justify a broader definition of EE than under common law.
- For FLSA, courts should look to the economic reality, which includes many of the same factors as control test but also:
- Opportunity for profit or loss
- Capital investment
- Degree of skill required
- Permanency
- Extent to which work is integral to ER’s overall business
- Court finds that decisive factor is really economic dependence of EEs
- Economic dependence is the focus of all the other considerations
- Easterbrook concurrence – Doesn’t like dependence test and also thinks origin of common law test (vicarious liability) doesn’t work. Should look to purpose of FLSA to determine coverage. ?
- Is this test really different from common law control test?
- Harper thinks both tests get at the same thing substantively – whether someone is operating an as an independent business owner.
- The factors of control test and many of the factors of economic realities test ask whether party can control their own time, control profits, make decisions, etc.
- This matters because of Congressional intent
- Policy distinction between independent entrepreneur and someone who is economically dependent like EE
- But formal law suggests more expansive scope under FLSA
- EE or ER?
This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment