Whether application of the FLSA's 'economic reality' factors to undisputed facts is a question of fact that can preclude summary judgment

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has long held that whether a worker is an employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) turns on the “economic reality” of his relationship with the putative employer. That determination requires (1) factual findings concerning the nature of the parties’ relationship (e.g., who sets the worker’s schedule), (2) applying a variety of “economic reality” guideposts (e.g., the putative employer’s “right to control” the worker) to those factual findings, and (3) an ultimate conclusion as to whether the worker is an employee. Courts broadly agree that the first determination is for the fact-finder and that the ultimate conclusion is a question of law for the court. But courts are divided on whether the second determination is a question of fact or of law. Respondents, owners and operators of limousine companies that use Uber Technologies, Inc.’s platform to generate business, filed this action under the FLSA. The district court entered summary judgment for Uber on the ground that respondents are independent contractors as a matter of law, but the Third Circuit vacated that decision. Although the Third Circuit did not identify any meaningful factual disputes concerning the nature of the parties’ relationship, it held that summary judgment was improper in light of disputes over how to apply the “economic reality” factors to those undisputed facts. The question presented is: Whether application of the FLSA’s “economic reality” factors to undisputed facts is a question of fact that can preclude summary judgment, as the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have held, or a question of law for the court to decide, as the Fifth Circuit has held.