Juan Orquiza v. Michael Bello

634 F. App'x 605

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2016
• Docket: 13-16364
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs suggest that Bello was their “employer” for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because he determined their method of payment and had the power to hire and fire employees. We question whether Bello had the power to hire and fire. The district court’s analysis of this question, which focused on whether Bello actually hired or fired, is inapt. But, even if Bello did have this power, our review of “the total employment situation and the economic realities of the work relationship” compels the conclusion that Bello was not the plaintiffs’ employer. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir, 1983); see 29 U.S.C. § 203; Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1012 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). Bello’s connection to the plaintiffs was too attenuated to establish an employer/employee relationship.

The motion of the Southern Nevada Labor Management Cooperation Committee et alius to become amici is GRANTED. The Clerk will file the brief.

AFFIRMED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.