Miller v. Hooks

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that business expenses itemized for tax purposes may support investment consistent with independent contractor status
• holding that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment due to disputed facts concerning the parties’ relative investment in the tools needed to perform the plaintiff’s tasks
• holding that the district court “erred in concluding that [the plaintiff] was not an employee under the FLSA as a matter of law” due to genuine factual disputes
• observing that courts must “construe the terms ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ expansively under the FLSA” (citation omitted)
• holding that the district court erred in holding on summary judgment that the plaintiff was not an “employee” under the FLSA, in part due to material fact disputes as to “the extent and effect of th[e] [plaintiff’s] autonomy” over his schedule and work assignments
• considering whether the defendant “required [the plaintiff] to work … set hours” when determining whether the “control” factor favored employee status under the FLSA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).