Irizarry v. Catsimatidis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an individual was an employer under the FLSA even though he did not meet the second and fourth prongs of the Carter test
• holding that the fact that an individual plaintiff’s electronic signature appeared on paychecks was not dispositive
• holding that “[o]wnership, or a stake in a company, is insufficient to establish that an individual is an ‘employer’ without some involvement in the company’s employment of the [plaintiff] employees” (emphasis added)
• holding that an individual can be personally liable under the FLSA as an employer where the individual possesses control over the company’s actual operations in a manner that relates to the plaintiff’s employment
• holding that “[e]vidence that an individual is an owner or officer of a company, or otherwise makes corporate decisions that have nothing to do with an employee’s function, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘employer’ status”
• holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to, inter alia, his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).