Arnold et al v. DirecTV, Inc. et al

Filing 472

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment on the Basis That They Were Not the Joint Employer of Mastec Employee Robert Ellendorf [ 340 ], DirectSat Employee Robert Guice [ 344 ], and Multiband Employee Steven Parr [ 348 ], are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on DirecTV, LLCs Employment Relationship [ 361 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/31/17. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMIE ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTV, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:10-CV-352 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants DirecTV, LLC, d/b/a DirecTV Home
Services and DTV Home Services II, LLC (collectively “DirecTV”)’s Motions for Summary
Judgment on the Basis That They Were Not the Joint Employer of Mastec Employee Robert
Ellendorf (Doc. No. 340), DirectSat Employee Robert Guice (Doc. No. 344), and Multiband
Employee Steven Parr (Doc. No. 348), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
DirecTV, LLC’s Employment Relationship (Doc. No. 361). The motions have been extensively
briefed and are ready for disposition.1 For the following reasons, the motions will be denied.
1

Oral argument was held on December 17, 2015. Since that time the parties have worked together on a
number of different issues in the case. The motions are now finally submitted for the Court’s ruling. The
Court has considered the parties’ supplemental authority filed in support of their summary judgment
motions. On November 7, 2016, DirecTV submitted an order from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas granting summary judgment in favor of DirecTV on the joint employer issue.
See Roslov v. DirecTV, Inc., Case No. 14-00616, 2016WL6892110 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 4, 2016), appeal
docketed, No. 16-4368 (8th Cir Dec. 2, 2016) (Doc. No. 459-1). In response, Plaintiffs submitted orders
from the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Field v. DirecTV, Case
No. 14-4427 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2016), and the Middle District of Tennessee in Thompson v. Bruister,
Case No. 07-00412 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 23, 2015), denying cross motions for summary judgment on
DirecTV’s alleged joint employment and liability (Doc. No. 462). On January 19, 2017, Plaintiffs
submitted a memorandum opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa in Roeder v. DirecTV, Case No. C14-4091-LTS, 2017 WL 151401 (Jan. 13, 2017), in
which the Court denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment on the employment question
and other liability issues (Doc. No. 468).

I.

Background

Plaintiffs are former satellite installation and service technicians classified as W-2
employees of one of DirecTV’s three Home Services Providers (“HSPs”). The Court
conditionally certified Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action on four FLSA
subclasses (MasTec, Inc. (“MasTec”), Multiband Corporation (“Multiband”), DirectSat USA,
LLC (“DirectSat”) and DirecTV Home Services)2 (Doc. No. 121, 134, 200). Plaintiffs have also
moved for Rule 23 class action certification to pursue their Missouri state law claims on behalf
of a subclass of DTV Home Services II, LLC technicians.3 Plaintiffs allege that they and other
similarly situated technicians were jointly employed by DirecTV under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (“MMWL”),
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.500 et seq., and claim entitlement to overtime compensation from
DirecTV for violations of the FLSA and MMWL. (See Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),
Doc. No. 279 at ¶¶ 16-28).
DirecTV moves for summary judgment as to the named representatives of the MasTec,
Multiband and DirectSat subclasses on the grounds that it was not their joint employer.4 DirecTV
argues it did not hire, fire, supervise, discipline, pay or provide benefits to Plaintiffs or keep their
personnel files. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on DirecTV’s employment
relationship, arguing that DirecTV operates a “fissured employment scheme” designed to allow

2

DirecTV has moved to decertify these subclasses (see Doc. Nos. 319, 326, 333, 352), which motions
will be addressed by the Court in a separate order.
3

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 23 Certification (Doc. No. 241) will be addressed in a separate order.

4

The question of employment is not disputed with respect to the DirecTV Home Services subclass
because DirecTV treats those technicians as W-2 employees. Joint employment is also not an issue for the
putative AeroSat Rule 23 class since DirecTV has stipulated it is a successor in liability to AeroSat (see
Doc. Nos. 375, 439).

-2-

the company to shed its role as a direct employer of its technicians while at the same time
maintaining tight control over their day-to-day work, from the uniforms they wear to the method,
manner, quantity, and quality of the work performed.
II.

Legal standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant a motion for
summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The
burden is on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Associated Elec. Co-op. Inc., 838
F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988). Once the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue
of material fact, the nonmovant must do more than show there is some doubt as to the facts.
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, the
nonmoving party bears the burden of setting forth affirmative evidence and specific facts by
affidavit and other evidence showing a genuine factual dispute that must be resolved at trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “A dispute
about a material fact is ‘genuine’ only ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Herring v. Canada Life Assur. Co., 207 F.3d 1026, 1030
(8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in a light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005). The evidence is not
weighed and no credibility determinations are made. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 750 (8th
Cir. 2008).
“[T]he filing of cross motions for summary judgment does not necessarily indicate that
there is no dispute as to a material fact, or have the effect of submitting the cause to a plenary

-3-

determination on the merits.” Wermager v. Cormorant Township Bd., 716 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th
Cir. 1983). In determining the appropriateness of summary judgment, “the relevant inquiry is
whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or
whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Bingaman v. Kansas
City Power & Light Co., 1 F.3d 976, 980 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52).
III.

Facts5

The following facts are undisputed or uncontroverted, except where noted otherwise:
DirecTV sells and provides digital television and audio programming via satellite. After a
customer signs up for DirecTV service, technicians install the receiving equipment in the
subscriber’s home or business. The receiving equipment, called the DirecTV System, consists of
a small receiving satellite dish antenna, one or more digital set-top receivers which are usually
leased to the subscriber, and remote controls.
Currently, three groups of technicians install DirecTV services.6 Individual dealers
selling DirecTV services account for approximately 15-20% of new activation installations. Of
the remaining 80% of new activation installations, approximately 45% are performed by
DirecTV Home Services technicians within DirecTV’s owned and operated division, and 55%
are performed by Home Services Provider (“HSP”) network technicians. According to DirecTV,
“the technician installing or fixing a system is ‘the face of DirecTV’ to the customer.”
(Deposition of Christopher M. Altomari (“Altomari Depo.”), Doc. No. 366-33 at 210:24-211:6).

5

The parties have alleged a substantial number of statements of undisputed material facts, and go to great
lengths, in voluminous filings, to dispute the other’s facts. The Court has reviewed the statements, the
responses, and the supporting documentation, and, where appropriate, will accept facts as supported by
appropriate admissible evidence.
6

DirecTV directly employs over 4,500 technicians and utilizes an additional 10,000 technicians through
its HSP network. (See DirecTV 2014 Annual Report, Doc. No. 364-1 at 11)

-4-

Currently, DirecTV contracts with three HSPs, namely, MasTec, Multiband, and DirectSat,
which together with DirecTV Home Services, make up DirecTV’s “fulfillment network.”
DirecTV installations account for approximately 85% of the revenue received by MasTec; 90%
of the revenue received by Multiband; and 95% of the revenue received by DirectSat. 7
DirecTV’s relationships with MasTec, Multiband and DirectSat are governed by a Home
Service Provider Agreement and its amendments. The HSP Agreements are drafted by DirecTV
and, apart from geographic territory and minor differences in installation rates, are essentially the
same in form and content.8 The Agreements provide that:
Contractor is an independent contractor authorized during the term hereof to perform and
provide Services to DIRECTV. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein,
Contractor shall have full control over the methods, techniques, sequences, and
procedures of the Services to be provided hereunder. This Agreement is intended to
create an independent contractor relationship between the parties for purposes of federal,
state and local law, including the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended … Because
Contractor and Contractor’s employees and subcontractors are not employees,
franchisees, agents or otherwise of DIRECTV, Contractor and its employees and
subcontractors are not entitled to any benefits to which DIRECTV employees may be
entitled under DIRECTV policies or as otherwise required by law, including workers’
compensation or unemployment compensation benefits.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, the HSP contractor acknowledges and agrees
that “DirecTV customers are customers of DirecTV, not contractor.” Each HSP has a defined,
non-overlapping territory made up of designated market areas assigned by DirecTV. An HSP
cannot install outside its designated market area without DirecTV’s permission; however,

7

DirecTV contends these facts do not accurately portray the business relationship between DirecTV and
the HSPs. (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc. No. 391 at ¶¶ 23-26). For instance, MasTec has
approximately 18,000 employees, only 3,000 of which perform DirecTV satellite television technician
services. (Declaration of Lois Beneke (“Beneke Decl.”), Doc. Nos. 343-3 and 343-4 at ¶ 9) Further, only
20% of MasTec, North America Inc.’s revenue comes from DirecTV. (Deposition of Jeff Muoio (“Muoio
Depo.”), Doc. No. 366-40 at 238:24-239:3).
8

Plaintiffs have submitted the relevant HSP Agreements from 2009 through 2012 as exhibits to their
memorandum in support of their motion for partial summary judgment. (See Doc. Nos. 364-5, -6, -7, -8, 10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15)

-5-

DirecTV may have other contractors install within an HSP’s designated market area. An HSP
may not assign its rights and obligations under the Agreement without DirecTV’s written
consent; DirecTV may, in its sole discretion, assign its rights and obligations under the
Agreement at any time for any purpose. An HSP must provide DirecTV with written notice of its
intention to offer employment to an individual known to be then-employed by another HSP
within the same or contiguous designated market area.9
The HSP agrees to “keep accurate and complete books and records regarding its
performance of its obligations under this Agreement,” including financial records related to its
business obligations under the Agreement, and make those books and records available for
DirecTV’s review. DirecTV occasionally conducts audits to ensure compliance with the HSP
Agreements, as permitted by the Agreements.
The Agreements also contain an “Exclusivity” paragraph, which provides that “[d]uring
the term of this Agreement, Contractor agrees that neither it, nor parent entities, subsidiaries or
affiliates, shall perform installations or Services for any other provider or distributor of
products/services which compete with DirecTV’s programming services or any other DirecTV
product or service.” This exclusivity provision extends to Plaintiffs, in that “a Contractor
employee trained to provide Services pursuant to this Agreement shall not simultaneously
provide services, on behalf of Contractor, for a cable company or a provider of telephone
services, and vice versa.”10

9

DirecTV asserts the Agreement does not impose any limitation on the HSP’s ability to hire such an
individual (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc. No. 391 at ¶ 21(f)).
10

DirecTV notes the Agreements do not limit the HSP contractor’s ability to have its technicians perform
any other work that does not compete with DirecTV (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc. No.
391 at ¶ 21(d)).

-6-

The required elements of a DirecTV installation are set out in a detailed “statement of
work.”11 DirecTV controls the fulfillment of its work orders in compliance with its technical
requirements set out in its HSP Agreements, policies and procedures, and its “Standard
Professional Installation Guidelines.” DirecTV pays its HSPs for completed work orders
according to a Rate Matrix established by DirecTV. Under the Agreements, HSPs are not entitled
to payment for work orders that are not completed, regardless of the reason, and DirecTV has the
right to offset, recoup from or charge back directly to HSPs any amount owed by HSPs to
DirecTV.
To be eligible for hire, DirecTV requires HSP technicians complete Satellite
Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA) Certified Installer Training; complete a
criminal background check; pass a 9-panel drug test administered by a DirecTV approved
vendor; and complete a DirecTV-approved training program.12 Per the Agreement, DirecTV
produces and distributes training materials to all technicians.13

11

DirecTV disputes any inference that every item in the statement of work is followed for every
installation (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc. No. 391 at ¶ 21(h)).
12

DirecTV disputes this, and notes that one of its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses testified it was not necessary
for anyone hired as a technician by an HSP to pass any certification before being issued a technician ID
number (Deposition of Elizabeth Yates (“Yates Depo.”, Doc. No. 366-4 at 41:4-7). In AeroSat’s 30(b)(6)
deposition, John Sellers testified that AeroSat’s technicians were supposed to obtain SBCA certification
within 180 days, “but we didn’t always comply with that.” (Deposition of John Sellers (“Sellers Depo.”),
Doc. No. 366-41 at 48:11-49:5) DirecTV asserts that several Plaintiffs employed by DirectSat were hired
despite their criminal backgrounds and that several Plaintiffs testified on deposition that they did not go
through any training program when they were hired by AeroSat, MasTec, Multiband or DirectSat
(Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc. No. 391 at ¶ 21(j)).
13

DirecTV does not dispute that it produces and distributes training materials related to the technical
aspects of installing and servicing DirecTV equipment, but disputes that these were the only training
materials since the evidence demonstrates that the HSPs design and implement their own training
programs and provide all training related to HR and pay policies (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’
SOF, Doc. No. 391 at ¶ 21(n)).

-7-

DirecTV requires HSP technicians to display a badge identifying themselves as
authorized DirecTV installers; wear no less than the approved DirecTV shirt, jacket, cap and
pants; and adhere to DirecTV’s Personal Grooming Standards.14 DirecTV further requires that no
less than 70 percent of all work orders performed be carried out by technicians driving vehicles
meeting DirecTV’s standards - new or like‐new, damage‐free, OSHA‐compliant, white van or
trucks with matching, white truck-bed shells. DirecTV logos must be displayed on all vehicles
operating under the authority of an HSP Agreement as well as the HSP contractor’s name and
phone number as a service provider for DirecTV.
The Agreements require HSPs to “acquire, install and maintain on-line access to
DirecTV’s technician scheduling and management systems … for purposes of inputting and
receiving Work Orders and other information from DirecTV.” DirecTV’s scheduling and work
order management system is known as Siebel. The Siebel database contains the names of every
technician who installs or services DirecTV satellite equipment and their unique “Tech ID
Number,” skill qualifications, technical training certification status, designated service region,
and availability to receive work orders.
HSPs were required to “outfit all employee technicians with a laptop computer or other
approved web-based, handheld device capable of receiving, modifying and closing Work Orders
in the field by such employee technician.” HSPs were also required to ensure that each
technician had the ability to communicate, via cell phone, with both the HSP’s dispatch office as
well as DirecTV call center representatives while performing services.
The work flow process begins when a customer agrees to buy DirecTV services. DirecTV
inputs the sales order into Siebel. Siebel processes the order, which consists of the specific
14

DirecTV disputes this and contends that the HSPs set uniform and grooming policies that were separate
and apart from the requirements in the HSP Agreements (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF, Doc.
No. 391 at ¶ 21(k)).

-8-

equipment and programming ordered by the customer, and assigns the work order. The parties
dispute how the assignments are made. Plaintiffs contend DirecTV schedules the work order
with a particular technician based on skill set, location and availability, whereas DirecTV asserts
the work order is assigned to the office (either an HSP or DirecTV) responsible for the
customer’s zip code. Plaintiffs concede that the HSPs have the ability to reschedule jobs within
Seibel.
DirecTV required technicians, including HSP technicians, to call their morning
appointments by 8:30 a.m. and their afternoon appointments by 12:30 p.m., and dictated certain
tasks that they had to complete before starting their work day, i.e., reviewing and acknowledging
daily activities, reviewing the day’s equipment needs, and mapping the customer’s address.
Technicians had to “status” themselves by notifying DirecTV of their arrival on site at a
customer’s location. DirecTV determined which days of the week and holidays DirecTV service
would be offered. The parties dispute DirecTV’s control over work hours, the length of
technician shifts and the boundaries of the work day.
IV.

Discussion

The FLSA requires employers to pay a minimum wage and overtime to employees who
work in an enterprise engaged in commerce. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. The existence of an
employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite to an FLSA claim. See id. at §§ 201-219
(referencing employer and employee); see also Childress v. Ozark Delivery of Missouri LLC, 95
F. Supp.3d 1130, 1138-39 (W.D. Mo. 2015). The Act broadly defines an employer as “any
person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee....”
Id. at § 203(d). Under the FLSA, two or more employers may employ a person jointly, and each

-9-

joint employer is individually responsible for complying with the FLSA with respect to the entire
employment. Childress, 95 F. Supp.3d at 1138-39 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 791.2).15
The Eighth Circuit has not established a test to determine whether an entity is a joint
employer under the FLSA; however, several courts in this Circuit have been guided by the
following four factors: (1) the power to hire and fire employees: (2) supervision and control of
employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) determination of the rate and method
of payment; and (4) maintenance of employment records. See, e.g., Thornton v. Charter
Commc’ns, LLC, No. 4:12CV479 SNLJ, 2014 WL 4794320, at *9 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2014);
Lochiano v. Compasionate Care, LLC, No. 10–01089–CV–W–DGK, 2012 WL 4059873 (W.D.
Mo. Sept. 14, 2012); McClean v. Health Sys., Inc., No. 11–03037–CV–S–DGK, 2011 WL
2650272, at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2011); Schubert v. Bethesda Health Group, Inc., 319 F.
Supp.2d 963, 971 (E.D. Mo. 2004). No one factor is dispositive; courts examine the “economic
realities” of the working relationship rather than technical definitions relating to employment,
Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28, 33 (1961); Rikard v. U.S. Auto Prot.,
LLC, No. 4:11CV1580 JCH, 2013 WL 5298460, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2013); Saunders v.
Ace Mortgage Funding, Inc., No. CIV. 05–1437DWFSRN, 2007 WL 4165294, at *4 (D. Minn.
Nov. 16, 2007); Dole v. Amerilink Corp., 729 F. Supp. 73, 76 (E.D. Mo. 1990), with the level of
control the alleged employer has over significant aspects of the plaintiff’s employment central to
the determination of employer status. See Matrai v. DirecTV, LLC, 168 F. Supp.3d 1347, 135253 (D. Kansas 2016); Jensen v. AT & T Corp., No. 4:06–CV–842 (CEJ), 2007 WL 3376893, at
15

29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b)(3) provides that “[w]here the employee performs work which simultaneously
benefits two or more employers, … a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist
in situations such as: (3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the
employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or
indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with the other employer.”

- 10 -

*2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2007); Solis v. Hill Country Farms, Inc., 808 F. Supp.2d 1105, 1115 (S.D.
Iowa 2011) aff’d, 469 Fed.Appx. 498 (8th Cir. 2012); Saunders, 2007 WL 4165294, at *4.
The joint employer analysis is “inherently fact intensive” because it requires an
assessment of the record in light of multiple factors. As such, the issue of joint employment is
often not suitable for resolution by summary judgment. See Barfield v. New York City Health &
Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Because of the fact-intensive character of a
determination of joint employment, we rarely have occasion to review determinations made as a
matter of law on an award of summary judgment.”).
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs rely on Perez v. Lantern Light Corp., No. C1201406 RSM, 2015 WL 3451268, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015), a case brought by the
Secretary of Labor on behalf of installer-technicians employed and trained by DirecTV HSP
Lantern Light Corporation d/b/a/ Advanced Information Systems (“AIS”). There, the Secretary
argued that DirecTV’s “pervasive” control over “nearly every facet of employment, from
employment eligibility to work schedule to performance standards, including dress and manner
of customer communication,” rendered DirecTV the de facto employer of AIS’s employees and
thus liable for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation. Id. at *4. DirecTV claimed it
engaged with AIS management on personnel matters only to ensure a high-quality experience on
behalf of its customers, without interest in matters such as hiring and firing, scheduling, payroll,
or any other joint employment standard. Id.
The Perez court analyzed these arguments under the four “regulatory” factors of Bonnette
v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1983)16 and the “non-

16

The factors described in Bonnette include whether the alleged employer:
(1) had the power to hire and fire the employees;
(2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment;

- 11 -

regulatory” eight-factor framework set out in Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 640 (9th Cir.
1997),17 and concluded that DirecTV was a joint employer of the AIS installers as a matter of
law. Id. at *17.
The Perez court found AIS’s “near singular reliance” on revenue from DirecTV to be
particularly significant to its analysis, noting “evaluation of a company’s power over the
employment relationship must take into account its control over the purse strings” as a measure
of control.” Id. at *5. Here, Plaintiffs claim that under the terms of the HSP Agreements,
DirecTV required technicians to work exclusively on DirecTV work orders and prohibited HSPs
from seeking business from other cable companies. This, according to Plaintiffs, left the
technicians economically dependent on DirecTV, giving DirecTV unquestioned authority over
their conditions of employment.
DirecTV relies on several cases in which the courts determined, by summary judgment,
that technicians supplied to cable or satellite television providers pursuant to a contract with
(3) determined the rate and method of payment; and
(4) maintained employment records.
Bonnette, 704 F.2d at 1470.
Under the Torres–Lopez economic reality test, the Court considers the following “non-regulatory”
factors:
17

(1) whether the work was a specialty job on the production line;
(2) whether responsibility under the contracts between a labor contractor and an employer pass
from one labor contractor to another without material changes;
(3) whether the premises and equipment of the employer are used for the work;
(4) whether the employees had a business organization that could or did shift as a unit from one
worksite to another;
(5) whether the work was “piece work” and not work that required initiative, judgment or
foresight;
(6) whether the employee had an opportunity for profit or loss depending upon the alleged
employee’s managerial skill;
(7) whether there was permanence in the working relationship; and,
(8) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.
Torres–Lopez, 111 F.3d at 640.

- 12 -

another company were not jointly employed by the cable providers. See Thornton, 2014 WL
4794320; Zampos v. W & E Commc’ns, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2013); Valdez v.
Cox Commc’ns Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-01797 PMP-RJJ, 2012 WL 1203726 (D. Nev.
Apr. 11, 2012); Lawrence v. Adderley Indus., Inc., No. CV-09-2309 (SJF), 2011 WL 666304
(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 11, 2011); Jacobson v. Comcast Corp., 740 F. Supp. 2d 683 (D. Md. 2010). In
each of these cases, the court determined that the control exercised by the cable providers over
the technicians stemmed from the nature of the cable provider business and the need to provide
reliable service to customers, not the nature of the relationship between the technician and the
cable provider, and thus did not establish joint employment by the cable provider. See Thornton,
2014 WL 4794320, at *15-16; Zampos, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 803-05; Valdez, 2012 WL 1203726,
at *6; Lawrence, 2011 WL 666304, at *8, 10; Jacobson, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 690-91.
For example, in Thornton, the court found that measures such as tracking on-time
arrivals, assistance with billing and activation for Charter customers, and requiring technicians
follow Charter technical specifications when installing Charter equipment, are “typical in a
contractor relationship and do not establish joint employment.” 2014 WL 4794320, at *15.
In Zampos, the plaintiffs argued that Comcast exercised supervision and control over the
technicians’ conditions of employment because it generated all the work performed by
technicians, provided routing software, monitored technician work performance, and maintained
employment records. 970 F. Supp. 2d at 803. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument, finding it
“largely ignores the difference between affecting work performance as opposed to exercising
supervision or control.” Id. Further, the court stated that “[q]uality control and compliancemonitoring that stems from the nature of the business - that is, from the nature of the goods or
services being delivered - are qualitatively different from control that stems from the nature of

- 13 -

the relationship between the employees and the putative employer.” Id. at 803-04 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Similarly in Lawrence, the district court found the fact the defendant cable company
required the technicians to follow certain guidelines and specifications did not weigh in favor of
a joint-employer relationship because “[i]t is in the nature of a contract that the contractor …
promises to deliver the performance bargained for by the client.” 2011 WL 666304 at *8. The
requirement that technicians undergo background checks and wear identification badges was
motivated by “good business sense” and the “nature of the business” and not any economic
reality of an employer-employee relationship. Id; see also, Jacobson, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 691
(“detailed instructions and a strict quality control mechanism will not, on their own, indicate an
employment relationship”).
The precise issue before the Court - whether DirecTV is the joint employer of HSP
technicians - has been addressed by district courts in other circuits on similar facts with varying
results. In Roslov, 2016 WL 6892110, the court granted summary judgment in favor of DirecTV,
finding it had little role in hiring service provider technicians aside from establishing minimum
requirements. Id. at *8. The court further found that aside from quality control guidelines,
DirecTV did not sufficiently control the technician’s daily activities, noting the technician had
flexibility throughout his day and could decide what he would work on or how he would work.
Id. Regarding pay structure, there was no evidence that DirecTV mandated or controlled the
technician’s pay, and “significant” evidence that the service provider controlled it. Id. Lastly,
DirecTV did not maintain any employment records for technicians other than onsite status data.
Id. at *9.

- 14 -

In comparison, the court in Lang v. DirecTV, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. La. 2011),
found a number of disputed issues of material facts regarding DirecTV’s control over plaintiffs
which precluded summary judgment, including whether it was DirecTV’s policy to fire
technicians who did not work evening shifts, whether plaintiffs received publications from
DirecTV specifying how technicians were required to perform a wide variety of tasks, the degree
of discretion plaintiffs retained in performing their jobs, and whether plaintiffs were “charged
back” more than they earned on particular jobs. Id. at 536-36. See also Thompson, No. 3:07‐
00412, Doc. 995 at 5 (denying motion for summary judgment as to the joint employer issue
“because of the existence of numerous genuine issues of material facts”); Field, Case No. 144427 (same).18
Of course, it is difficult to generalize from the case law because the courts are not
consistent in the degree of emphasis they place on the different factors in the joint employer
analysis. Lang, 801 F. Supp. 2d at 536; see also Roeder, 2017 WL 151401 at *10 (“Because this
is a fact-intensive ‘individualized inquiry,’ the cases cited by the parties have limited value in
determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact.”). Careful consideration of the
facts presented in the parties’ motions reveals substantial factual disputes and contested
inferences that preclude summary judgment on the parties’ employment relationship. Although
both sides argue the undisputed facts support their respective positions, they go to great lengths,
in voluminous filings, to dispute the other’s factual statements, and plainly disagree over which
facts and inferences are significant in the four factor analysis of the economic reality test, as
discussed below.
18

Plaintiffs also rely on a recent order in Roeder, 2017 WL 151401, denying the parties’ cross motions
for summary judgment on the employment question and other liability issues. However, the court did not
consider whether DirecTV was a joint employer of the plaintiff because the parties agreed that during the
relevant time period, he was engaged as an independent contractor by the service provider. Id. at *26.

- 15 -

Power to hire and fire
Plaintiffs contend that DirecTV controls the hiring of HSP technicians to the extent it sets
technician requirements for training, certification, drug screening, and criminal background
checks. Plaintiffs further contend that DirecTV has the power to constructively terminate
installers by no longer assigning them work. DirecTV denies having this power or authority to
hire or fire and notes that Plaintiffs specifically testified they were interviewed and hired by their
HSP employers, not DirecTV (see, e.g., Deposition of Robert Guice (“Guice Depo.”), Doc. No.
347-8 at 28:12-29:23; 31:2-11; 31:22-32:1; Deposition of Robert Ellendorf (“Ellendorf Depo.”),
Doc. No. 342-1 at 30:5-24). Further, Plaintiffs Guice and Ellendorf testified they were
terminated by their HSP supervisors (Guide Depo. at 184:5-10; Ellendorf Depo. at 73:14074:11;
95:14-23); Plaintiff Parr notified Multiband of his resignation (Deposition of Steven Parr (“Parr
Depo.”), Doc. No. 351-1 at 25:25-26:14). DirecTV does not deny that it requires HSPs to screen
applicants, which it argues is done in the context of quality control and not indicative of joint
employment status, but disputes that the Agreements authorized it to determine whether
applicants passed or failed such screenings. Moreover, DirecTV suggests these screening
policies were not consistently complied with. (See Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ SOF,
Doc. No. 391 at ¶ 21(j)). The Court finds genuine issues of material fact impact this factor.
Supervision and control
The evidence of record shows DirecTV exercised some supervision and control over
Plaintiffs’ work schedules and conditions of employment, but there remains a genuine factual
dispute regarding the extent of that control. It is uncontroverted that DirecTV installation jobs,
initiated on customer request, were scheduled by DirecTV through its Siebel system and
distributed to HSPs in the form of daily work orders. DirecTV assigned work orders to specific

- 16 -

technicians based on task duration and estimated travel time between customer locations
combined with other information the HSPs were required to load into Siebel, i.e., technician skill
qualifications, technical training certification status, work schedules, designated service region,
and starting location. DirecTV disputes this, asserting that the initial work order assignments are
“preliminarily” or “generically” assigned based on information provided by the HSPs, and that
the HSPs often reassigned work orders in their discretion. Ellendorf acknowledged that jobs were
reassigned to him from other technicians and vice versa “quite often” by his MasTec supervisor
(Ellendorf Depo. at 83:1-10), and Parr testified that his supervisors reassigned orders if he could
not complete all of his assignments or when a technician was sick (Parr Depo. at 114:15-18;
122:20-123:4). Guice testified that his DirectSat supervisors would manipulate his home address
in his handheld device to assign him work orders “out where the work is.” (Guice Depo. at
53:12-54:6)
Plaintiffs further claim DirecTV monitored or “tracked” technicians through its Siebel
system. For instance, technicians were required to notify DirecTV of their arrival at a customer’s
location, record start and stop times, and notify DirecTV when a work order was completed.
DirecTV does not dispute that it had the ability to track technicians through Siebel, but disputes
that it actually did so. As additional evidence of its lack of control over the terms and conditions
of technicians’ employment, DirecTV points to the fact that different MasTec and Multiband
locations were unionized at different times, and that it had no involvement in collective
bargaining negotiations with the unions.
There are also factual disputes as to whether DirecTV-employed technicians and HSPemployed technicians receive the same training and install the same DirecTV systems under the
same DirecTV policies and procedures, and whether HSPs have their own policies regarding

- 17 -

driving safety, appearance of personnel, timesheet practices, attendance, discipline and
termination, and vehicle maintenance.
Determination of rate and method of payment
There is no dispute that each HSP had its own compensation and pay policies and that
DirecTV did not directly pay Plaintiffs; however, Plaintiffs contend that as a matter of economic
reality, DirecTV impacted their rate and method of pay because their compensation was based on
a fixed percentage of the piece rate paid by DirecTV to the HSPs for completed work orders.
DirecTV denies any involvement in determining the rate of payment for technicians, relying on
the fact that the HSP Agreements do not state how much of the payments set forth on the Rate
Matrix should be allocated to technicians in pay. The Court finds there are factual disputes
concerning DirecTV’s influence on the rate of pay, and specifically whether HSPs consult with
DirecTV on how it pays its technicians or whether DirecTV instructs HSPs on how or what to
pay its technicians.
Maintenance of employment records
Plaintiffs do not dispute that DirecTV does not “maintain” personnel files, payroll
records, performance evaluations, benefits information, or any other “employment records” of
HSP employees; however, Plaintiffs contend that DirecTV has full access to such records (see,
e.g., Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, Doc. No. 421 at ¶
322). The HSPs maintain personnel records on their own employees, including documents
regarding hiring, termination and payroll, and tax records. Moreover, pursuant to the HSP
Agreement, the HSPs were required to have available for DirecTV’s inspection the results of

- 18 -

technicians’ background checks, drug tests, social security verification and DMV checks.19
Plaintiffs further claim that DirecTV maintained its own records on technicians in Siebel,
including their unique “Tech ID Number,” work schedule, skill set, background test and drug
screen information, and professional certifications, which Plaintiffs characterize as payroll
information. DirecTV disputes this, arguing that all of this information is provided to DirecTV
by the HSPs (not the technicians) and the technicians’ work order history. The Court finds there
are genuine issues of material fact regarding DirecTV’s recordkeeping and maintenance of
employment records.
V.

Conclusion

In sum, there are genuine disputes regarding the material facts necessary to an analysis of
the factors indicative of joint employment. The Court cannot make credibility and factual
determinations on a summary judgment motion. For this reason, the parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgment will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment on the
Basis That They Were Not the Joint Employer of Mastec Employee Robert Ellendorf [340],
DirectSat Employee Robert Guice [344], and Multiband Employee Steven Parr [348], are
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
DirecTV, LLC’s Employment Relationship [361] is DENIED.

19

Plaintiffs dispute these were the only records the HSPs were required to have available for DirecTV
(See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, Doc. No. 421 at ¶
321).

- 19 -

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.

- 20 -