In an important decision for the advancement of employee rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) and the New York Labor Law (\u201cNYLL\u201d), on September 11, 2014, the Southern District of New York granted Defendant United States Tennis Association\u2019s summary judgment motion finding that the Plaintiff umpires at the US Open were independent contractors rather than employees.\u00a0 Meyer v. United States Tennis Association<\/i>, Nos.11 -06268 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2014).<\/p>\n
On April 25, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs\u2019 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 \u201cGrand Slam\u201d tennis tournaments that takes place annually over a period of 3 weeks in later August and early September.\u00a0 Tennis umpires, who serve as either the chair umpire or one of several line umpires during a match, decide \u201cquestions of fact\u201d and \u201cquestions of law,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
The Court acknowledged that the crucial issue to decide was whether tennis umpires are employees under the FLSA and NYLL. The Court used the \u201ceconomic reality\u201d test for the FLSA and the Bynog<\/i> factors for the NYLL to determine that Plaintiffs are independent contractors under both.\u00a0 Under the FLSA, the \u201ceconomic reality\u201d test looks at several factors: (1) degree of control \u2013 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\u2019s opportunity for profit\/loss \u2013 the Court found this factor weighed equally to both because although Defendants invested far more in the US Open than Plaintiffs did in officiating,\u00a0 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 \u2013 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 \u2013 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 \u201cintegral\u201d to employer\u2019s business \u2013 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<\/i> 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\u2019s payroll, had no fixed schedule, and claimed they were independent contractors on their income tax returns.<\/p>\n