Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.
917 F.3d 369 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 2019
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Premier Directional Drilling appealed a ruling that classified five workers as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding the workers were independent contractors because they controlled how they performed their work and could accept or reject projects. The court emphasized that control only matters when it affects a meaningful part of the business. This case is critical for subcontractors because it clarifies when you can be classified as an independent contractor versus an employee, which affects wage, overtime, and benefits obligations.
Key Takeaways
- •Document your control over work methods and project selection—keep records showing you decide how to perform tasks and can turn down jobs
- •Similar job duties to employees don't automatically make you an employee; what matters is whether you control meaningful aspects of the work
- •Control must be real and substantive, not just theoretical—courts look at actual practice, not just what contracts say
- •If you're classified as a contractor, ensure your agreement reflects genuine independence in scheduling, methods, and project acceptance
Control is only significant when it shows an individual exerts such control over a meaningful part of the business.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I be classified as an independent contractor if I do the same work as employees?
Yes, according to this case. Job duties alone don't determine classification. What matters is whether you control how you perform the work and can accept or reject projects. The court found workers were contractors despite similar duties because they had meaningful control over their work methods and project selection. Make sure your actual practices match your contractor status.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.