Guillen v. Armour Home Improvement, Inc.

1

JESUS NEHEMIAS MONTANO GUILLEN, Plaintiff, v. ARMOUR HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. DLB-19-2317

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 22, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH L. BOARDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Jesus Nehemias Montano Guillen filed suit against defendants Armour Home Improvement, Inc., Armour Construction LLC (collectively “Armour”), Robert Stouffer (“Robert”), and Christina Stouffer (“Christina”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 (“FLSA”), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl § 3-401 (“MWHL”), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl § 3-501 (“MWPCL”). ECF 1 (complaint) &amp 33 (amended complaint).^[1] Guillen alleges that defendants failed to pay statutory overtime wages in violation of the three statutes and failed to pay earned wages in violation of the MWPCL. ECF 33, ¶¶ 15-29.

Now pending before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Christina was not Guillen's “employer” under the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those claims. Defendants also argue that all claims should be dismissed because Guillen cannot meet his burden of proof that defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that he worked hours for which he was not paid. ECF 48. The motion has been fully briefed. ECF 53 & 63. No. hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Christina's status as an “employer, ” and the claims against her are dismissed. The motion is denied with respect to the remaining claims. Guillen has identified sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the defendants knew that he worked more hours than he was paid for.

I. Factual Background

Armour is a residential contracting and home improvement company operating in Maryland. Robert owns and operates Armour. ECF 48-4, at 9 (63:21-64:5); ECF 48-9, at 4 (26:21-27:6); ECF 53-2, at 19 (148:9-10). Robert incorporated Armour Home on February 11, 2004, as the sole owner. ECF 48-6; ECF 48-2, at 6 (39:15-41:1). In 2016, Robert formed Armour Construction to better describe the type of work performed by Armour, which was not necessarily in a home.^[2] ECF 48-4, at 6 (41:7-21). Prior to founding Armour, Robert worked for various contracting companies and passed Maryland's home improvement licensing exam. ECF 48-4, at 3-5, 11-12 (29:14-38:8, 94:13-98:20). Armour's tax documents identify Robert as the sole shareholder of Armour Home and the “sole member” of Armour Construction. ECF 48-16. In his capacity as owner, Robert meets and communicates with Armour's current and potential customers, prepares estimates, awards contracts for jobs, and supplies materials to job sites. ECF 48-4, at 10 (73:5-21); ECF 48-7, ¶ 17.

Guillen worked for or with Armour during the relevant period of August 2016 to July 2018.^[3] Guillen's work included, but was not limited to, putting up drywall, framing, painting, plumbing, and cleanup work. ECF 48-18, at 5 (78:19-79:9); ECF 63-6, ¶ 20. Robert either contracted or “hired” Guillen.^[4] ECF 53-2, at 13 (88:20-89:8). Guillen testified that Robert was his point of contact for jobs, providing information such as where to go and what materials to bring, responding to questions, and for the “first time on the job, ” appearing on site and telling him how he was supposed to do the work. ECF 48-18, at 5-6 (77:17-82:21); ECF 63-6, ¶ 4; ECF 63-7, at 10-11 (177:13-188:1); see also ECF 48-19, at 5 (75:7-77:20) (coworker testimony that Robert scheduled and supervised work). Robert testified that he only awarded Guillen contracts to be completed by a certain date, and it was up to Guillen to determine how and when to do the work. ECF 53-12, at 8-9 (104:2-106:14).

Armour paid Guillen a flat hourly wage with no overtime adjustment. ECF 53-2, at 14 (99:4-100:12). Guillen was initially paid $15/hour, and his wage increased periodically to $25/hour. ECF 53-4, at 3, 6 (49:11-51:16, 69:19-72:21); ECF 63-6, ¶ 8. Guillen testified he would typically be on the job site from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. when working a job for Armour. ECF 33, ¶ 11; ECF 53-4, at 12-13 (121:13-125:15); ECF 53-11, at 5 (30:17-31:5); ECF 63-6, ¶ 15; but see ECF 53-12, at 11-12 (137:17-138:4 (Robert testimony that Guillen could and did show up after 8:00 a.m.). Guillen also testified that he spent between thirty minutes and one hour nearly every morning, prior to 8:00 a.m., at one of several construction supply stores purchasing materials for the day's work at Robert's direction. ECF 48-18, at 6, 10 (82:1-84:9, 109:19-112:21); see also ECF 53-11, at 7-8 (40:10-43:20) (coworker joined Guillen on these morning runs); but see ECF 48-4, at 13 (138:5-140:7) (Robert testified that Guillen was not required to purchase supplies each morning). Guillen stated he would go straight to the jobsite only one or two days a month. ECF 48-18, at 11 (122:11-123:4). Additionally, Guillen worked Saturdays when a job required it, until the job was finished. ECF 48-18, at 16 (173:1-13). Guillen claims this occurred an average of two Saturdays a month, an average of seven to nine hours each time. ECF 48-18, at 16 (173:1- 22); ECF 63-6, ¶ 9. Overall, Guillen alleges he worked “no less than 50 hours per week” for Armour. ECF 33, ¶ 11; ECF 53-4, at 11-12 (120:9-121:21) (Guillen testified he reported between ninety-two and one hundred hours each two-week period); see also ECF 53-11, at 10 (57:2-6) (coworker testimony that he and Guillen worked fifty-eight to sixty hours each week).

Guillen reported his working hours every two weeks to Robert or Christina, Robert's spouse, one of whom would cut him a check. ECF 48-7, ¶ 11. ECF 48-18, at 3 (59:4-14); ECF 53-2, at 15 (109:4-15); ECF 53-12, at 13 (163:9-164:18). Robert would occasionally respond that the reported hours were too high. ECF 53-12, at 10 (110:1-12); see also ECF 48-19, at 7 (103:19- 105:9) (coworker believed Robert did not accept more than 100 hours per pay period); ECF 53-11, at 12 (63:5-16) (coworker testimony that Robert would say reported hours were “too many”). Other times, Armour would not pay the correct amount, and Guillen would reach out to Robert or Christina to resolve the discrepancy. ECF 48-18, at 3 (59:15-60:7); ECF 53-4, at 5 (67:6-68:21). Guillen never reported the time he spent prior to 8:00 a.m. purchasing supplies because he believed it was Armour's company policy to only count hours after 8:00 a.m. ECF 48-18, at 4 (75:1-19); ECF 48-19, at 8 (112:10-15). He did report his time spent on mid-day supply runs. ECF 48-18, at 11 (123:8-12). He also reported his Saturday hours. ECF 48-18, at 16 (173:1-22).

The parties dispute the role and responsibilities of Christina at Armour. Defendants characterize Christina as an “office assistant or manager” who primarily assisted Robert in administrative tasks and worked less than twenty-five hours per week. ECF 48-1, at 13. Guillen asserts that Christina was an owner and officer of Armour who set worker schedules and made decisions about his pay, among other duties. ECF 53, at 4.

Christina was not involved in Armour's founding. ECF 48-4, at 6 (40:1-4); ECF 48-9, at 3 (15:9-16:5). She began assisting Robert with Armour in 2004 or 2005. ECF 48-9, at 3 (15:9- 16:12); ECF 53-2, at 4 (21:12-20). Christina considers raising her children, who were born in 2004 and 2006, to be her full-time job. ECF 48-9, at 4 (26:13-20); ECF 53-2, at 4 (21:2-11). Initially, she spent less than ten hours per week performing work for Armour. ECF 53-2, at 5 (22:1-20). From 2016 to 2018, she “did whatever [she] could to help [Robert] run his company, ” including answering phones, monitoring and responding to emails, managing customer files, managing advertising and marketing, scheduling home estimates, typing contracts, ordering office supplies, and occasionally transporting materials. ECF 48-9, at 4, 16 (26:1-12, 146:15-21); ECF 48-10, ¶ 17; ECF 53-2, at 5 (24:11-16); ECF 53-3. She also assisted Robert with entering financial information into Armour's computer accounting program, including expenses attributable to purported “subcontractors” like Guillen. ECF 53-2, at 11 (80:7-81:15); see also ECF 48-10, ¶ 17 (Christina would “manage accounts receivable and payable”). Robert viewed her role as “administrative.” ECF 48-4, at 8-9 (61:19-62:11); ECF 48-8, ¶ 4.

Christina does not draw a salary from Armour. ECF 48-4, at 9 (62:12-19). Her only disclosed income from 2016-2018 consisted of $10, 000-12, 000 annually in rent payments from Armour to her for leasing a part of her and Robert's house as office space, which she testified were a “paper trail for tax purposes.” ECF 48-11; ECF 53-2, at 6, 11-12 (55:21-57:19, 81:16-83:3). Christina has a joint bank account with Robert, in which Robert deposits profits from Armour. ECF 53-2, at 7 (60:4-17). She is also a signatory on Armour's bank account, and she has infrequently used that account to pay personal bills and expenses. Id. at 7-9 (61:8-66:2). Christina would prepare and sign checks for business expenses from Armour's account at Robert's direction. ECF 48-9, at 15 (111:7-20). This occasionally included Guillen's wage payments, which Christina calculated based on the number of reported hours and Guillen's hourly wage. ECF 48-9, at 14 (109:4-110:11). Christina testified she learned Guillen's hourly wage from Robert. Id.

Christina testified by affidavit that she has no decision-making authority at Armour; rather, she conveys information to and from Robert, seeks Robert's express approval and direction before issuing checks from Armour's account,...