economic reality test in Washington

2013All parties draw from the different factors applied by the United States Supreme Court and various federal circuit courts in arguing their respective positions in this case.31 Despite the variety offactors enunciated by different 31 See, .e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, non- exhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d 61 , 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer's premises and equipment were used for the purported employees work; (2) wheth

2013See, e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, nonexhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d at 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer’s premises and equipment were used for the purported employees’ work; (2) whether the contractor corporation “had a business that could or did shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another”; (3) the extent to which the purported employees performed a discrete line-job that was integral to the employer

2013We start with consideration of the seminal United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of joint employment under the FLSA, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb.34 There, Kaiser Packing Company, a slaughterhouse, hired an experienced meat boner to "assemble a group of skilled [meat] boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse."35 "The terms ofthe contract were that [the meat boner supervisor] should be paid for the work of [meat] boning ... that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work . . . [and] that Kaiser would also furnish [the] barrels for the boned meat. . . ."36 2

2013See Moreau, 356 F.3d at 947 (noting that it had previously considered a “non-exhaustive” list of factors in assessing joint employment); Barfield v. N.Y.C.

2013All parties draw from the different factors applied by the United States Supreme Court and various federal circuit courts in arguing their respective positions in this case.31 Despite the variety offactors enunciated by different 31 See, .e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, non- exhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d 61 , 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer's premises and equipment were used for the purported employees work; (2) wheth

2013Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 469 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying four-factor test to determine status of entity as joint employer that analyzed the purported employer’s (1) power to hire and fire the purported employee, (2) supervision and control of the employees, (3) determination of the rate and method of payment, and (4) control of employment records); Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (11th Cir. 2012) (summarizing the six-factor test the Eleventh Circuit has developed); U.S. Dep’t of Labor Opinion Letter, 2001 WL 1558966 (May 11, 2001) (out

2013All parties draw from the different factors applied by the United States Supreme Court and various federal circuit courts in arguing their respective positions in this case.31 Despite the variety offactors enunciated by different 31 See, .e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, non- exhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d 61 , 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer's premises and equipment were used for the purported employees work; (2) wheth

2013Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 469 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying four-factor test to determine status of entity as joint employer that analyzed the purported employer’s (1) power to hire and fire the purported employee, (2) supervision and control of the employees, (3) determination of the rate and method of payment, and (4) control of employment records); Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (11th Cir. 2012) (summarizing the six-factor test the Eleventh Circuit has developed); U.S. Dep’t of Labor Opinion Letter, 2001 WL 1558966 (May 11, 2001) (out

2019That’s why toting up a score is not enough.” Reyes v. Remington Hybrid Seed Co., Inc., 495 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2007).

2014That's why toting up a score is not enough." Reyes, 495 F.3d at 408 .

2013All parties draw from the different factors applied by the United States Supreme Court and various federal circuit courts in arguing their respective positions in this case.31 Despite the variety offactors enunciated by different 31 See, .e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, non- exhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d 61 , 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer's premises and equipment were used for the purported employees work; (2) wheth

2013See, e.g., Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730 (outlining a six-factor, nonexhaustive economic reality test); Zheng, 355 F.3d at 66-67, 72 (applying an economic reality test that examined six different factors, very similar to those outlined by the Rutherford court: (1) whether the employer’s premises and equipment were used for the purported employees’ work; (2) whether the contractor corporation “had a business that could or did shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another”; (3) the extent to which the purported employees performed a discrete line-job that was integral to the employer

2021We applied an economic reality test with five formal or regulatory factors, which included “[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; [and] “[5] Preparation of payroll and the payment of wages.” Becerra, 181 Wn.2d at 196-97 (fifth alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633,

2021We applied an economic reality test with five formal or regulatory factors, which included “[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; [and] “[5] Preparation of payroll and the payment of wages.” Becerra, 181 Wn.2d at 196-97 (fifth alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633,

2013We start with consideration of the seminal United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of joint employment under the FLSA, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb.34 There, Kaiser Packing Company, a slaughterhouse, hired an experienced meat boner to "assemble a group of skilled [meat] boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse."35 "The terms ofthe contract were that [the meat boner supervisor] should be paid for the work of [meat] boning ... that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work . . . [and] that Kaiser would also furnish [the] barrels for the boned meat. . . ."36 2

2013We start with consideration of the seminal United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of joint employment under the FLSA, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb.34 There, Kaiser Packing Company, a slaughterhouse, hired an experienced meat boner to "assemble a group of skilled [meat] boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse."35 "The terms ofthe contract were that [the meat boner supervisor] should be paid for the work of [meat] boning ... that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work . . . [and] that Kaiser would also furnish [the] barrels for the boned meat. . . ."36 2

2013We start with consideration of the seminal United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of joint employment under the FLSA, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb.34 There, Kaiser Packing Company, a slaughterhouse, hired an experienced meat boner to "assemble a group of skilled [meat] boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse."35 "The terms ofthe contract were that [the meat boner supervisor] should be paid for the work of [meat] boning ... that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work . . . [and] that Kaiser would also furnish [the] barrels for the boned meat. . . ."36 2

2013We start with consideration of the seminal United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of joint employment under the FLSA, Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb.34 There, Kaiser Packing Company, a slaughterhouse, hired an experienced meat boner to "assemble a group of skilled [meat] boners to do the boning at the slaughterhouse."35 "The terms ofthe contract were that [the meat boner supervisor] should be paid for the work of [meat] boning ... that Kaiser would furnish a room in its plant for the work . . . [and] that Kaiser would also furnish [the] barrels for the boned meat. . . ."36 2

2013Target Corp., 543 F. Supp. 2d 646, 652 (W.D.