7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Campusano v. Lusitano Construction LLCgreen2 sentences2020To determine whether an individual qualifies as an employer under the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL, both Maryland and Federal courts apply the economic reality test.14 Campusano, 208 Md. 2018In Campusano , we extended the economic reality test applied to employer determinations under the MWHL to the employer determinations under the MWPCL because of the similarities between the Acts' definitions. 208 Md. | 1 | 3 |
Boucher v. Shawgreen1 sentence2020The economic reality test is sometimes specific or exclusive cause of improperly failing to do so.”) with Boucher v. Shaw, 196 P.3d 959, 963 (Nev. 2008) (“Because the Legislature has not unequivocally indicated its intent to equate managers with ‘employers’ . . . we conclude that individual management- level corporate employees . . . cannot be held liable as employers for the unpaid wages of employees under Nevada’s wage and hour laws.”). 14 In Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 724 (1947), the Supreme Court first articulated the test when it considered an action to enjoin two meat | 1 | 1 |
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McCombgreen1 sentence2020The economic reality test is sometimes specific or exclusive cause of improperly failing to do so.”) with Boucher v. Shaw, 196 P.3d 959, 963 (Nev. 2008) (“Because the Legislature has not unequivocally indicated its intent to equate managers with ‘employers’ . . . we conclude that individual management- level corporate employees . . . cannot be held liable as employers for the unpaid wages of employees under Nevada’s wage and hour laws.”). 14 In Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 724 (1947), the Supreme Court first articulated the test when it considered an action to enjoin two meat | 1 | 1 |
cluster 560409green2 sentences2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, 2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, | 1 | 1 |
Daniel Lee Vanskike v. Howard A. Peters, IIIgreen2 sentences2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, 2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, | 1 | 1 |
Harker v. State Use Industriesgreen2 sentences2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, 2012See also Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131 , 133 (4th Cir.Md.1993) (holding that “a true employer-employee relationship” involves a “ ‘bargained-for exchange of labor’ for mutual economic gain” (citing Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir.1992); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir.1991))). 7 The economic reality test for “control” examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, | 1 | 1 |
Hodgson v. Arnheim And Neely, Inc.green1 sentence2012See, e.g., Hodgson [v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., 444 F.2d 609, 612 (3d Cir.Pa.1971) ]; Baystate Alt. | 1 | 1 |
Itzep v. Target Corp.green1 sentence2009See Itzep, 543 F.Supp.2d at 653 n. 54 (commenting on the apparent “difference among the circuit courts regarding factors a court should consider in determining joint employment under the FLSA”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Newell v. Runnels
green
2 sentences2020“Economic reality test” appears to be the most commonly used title, as well as the one adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals when it first applied the “economic reality test” in Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578 (2009). 15 The economic reality test for “control” examines “four factors to determine an individual’s level of ‘control’ over an employee.” Pinnacle Group, LLC, 235 Md. 2013The economic reality test for an alleged employer’s “control” over an employee examines “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.” Id. at 39-40 , 56 A.3d 303 (quoting Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578, 651 , 967 A.2d 729 (2009)). | 3 | 2012–2020 |
Pinnacle Grp., LLC v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2026The economic reality test examines “four factors to determine an individual’s level of ‘control’ over an employee.” Pinnacle Grp., LLC v. Kelly, 235 Md. 2020“Economic reality test” appears to be the most commonly used title, as well as the one adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals when it first applied the “economic reality test” in Newell v. Runnels, 407 Md. 578 (2009). 15 The economic reality test for “control” examines “four factors to determine an individual’s level of ‘control’ over an employee.” Pinnacle Group, LLC, 235 Md. | 2 | 2020–2026 |
cluster 398807
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 750 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp.
green
2 sentences2012Payment and Collection Law § 501(b) defines an employer to include “any person who employs an individual in the State or a successor of the person.” The word “employ” is defined broadly by LE § 3-101(c) as “to engage an individual to work,” and the term includes “(i) allowing an individual to work; and (ii) instructing an individual to be present at a work site.” Because of this expansive definition and the Payment and Collection Law’s remedial purposes, see Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 517-18 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003); Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 644 , 861 A.2d 2012Payment and Collection Law § 501(b) defines an employer to include “any person who employs an individual in the State or a successor of the person.” The word “employ” is defined broadly by LE § 3-101(c) as “to engage an individual to work,” and the term includes “(i) allowing an individual to work; and (ii) instructing an individual to be present at a work site.” Because of this expansive definition and the Payment and Collection Law’s remedial purposes, see Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 517-18 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003); Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 644 , 861 A.2d | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Friolo v. Frankel
green
2 sentences2012Payment and Collection Law § 501(b) defines an employer to include “any person who employs an individual in the State or a successor of the person.” The word “employ” is defined broadly by LE § 3-101(c) as “to engage an individual to work,” and the term includes “(i) allowing an individual to work; and (ii) instructing an individual to be present at a work site.” Because of this expansive definition and the Payment and Collection Law’s remedial purposes, see Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 517-18 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003); Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 644 , 861 A.2d 2012Payment and Collection Law § 501(b) defines an employer to include “any person who employs an individual in the State or a successor of the person.” The word “employ” is defined broadly by LE § 3-101(c) as “to engage an individual to work,” and the term includes “(i) allowing an individual to work; and (ii) instructing an individual to be present at a work site.” Because of this expansive definition and the Payment and Collection Law’s remedial purposes, see Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 517-18 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003); Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md.App. 620, 644 , 861 A.2d | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Louis Carter v. Dutchess Community College
green
1 sentence2009The Second Circuit applied this test first in Carter v. Dutchess Cmty. Coll., 735 F.2d 8 (1984), where an inmate working as a tutor at the prison where he was incarcerated sought back pay under the FLSA from the community college administering inmate education. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Barfield v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
1 sentence2009Under this version of the economic reality test, the pertinent considerations are “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, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.” Id. at 142 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Brickey v. County of Smyth, Va.
green
1 sentence2008No one factor is dispositive; the factors are only a “means to determine if the alleged employer has enough control over the employee, his working conditions, his workplace, and his pay to compel compliance with the Act.” Brickey, 944 F.Supp. at 1315 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.