Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

854 F.3d 131 (2017)

Quick Summary

Mazhar Saleem (plaintiff) and fellow black-car drivers sued Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd. (defendant) seeking overtime pay under labor laws. The dispute centered on whether drivers were CTG employees or independent contractors.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that drivers were independent contractors due to their autonomy in work schedules, ability to drive for others, making significant investments, and lack of CTG’s control over crucial aspects of their work.

Facts of the Case

Mazhar Saleem (plaintiff) and other drivers who operated as franchisees for Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd. (CTG) (defendant) initiated a class-action lawsuit. The drivers, who were either renting or had purchased franchises from CTG, claimed they were entitled to overtime pay under New York labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

These drivers had significant autonomy in their work, including the choice to drive for other companies, decide their work schedules, and even pick up fares against local licensing laws. CTG maintained certain requirements such as adherence to a rule book while driving for CTG, including dress code and vehicle maintenance standards.

However, the drivers did not wear uniforms or display CTG logos on their cars. The trial court dismissed the drivers’ claims, stating they were independent contractors and not employees, which led to the drivers appealing the decision.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit for unpaid overtime pay under New York labor laws and the FLSA.
  2. The trial court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA but later granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the overtime pay claims.
  3. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the black-car drivers affiliated with CTG are considered ’employees’ entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA and NYLL or ‘independent contractors’ who are not covered by these labor protections.

Rule of Law

The legal distinction between an ’employee’ and an ‘independent contractor’ under the FLSA is determined by examining the ‘economic reality’ of the relationship, focusing on factors such as the degree of control exercised by the employer, the workers’ opportunity for profit or loss, investment in equipment, degree of skill required, permanence of the working relationship, and whether the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeals, in analyzing the economic reality of the drivers’ relationship with CTG, found that the drivers had substantial autonomy in their work. They could choose when and where to work, accept or decline job offers, drive for competitors, and cultivate personal clients.

The drivers also made significant investments in their businesses by purchasing or leasing franchises and vehicles, indicating they were operating their own businesses.

The Court determined that while CTG provided a client base and dispatch system, it did not exert control over the crucial aspects of drivers’ work that would classify them as employees. As such, the economic reality showed that drivers were more akin to independent contractors running their own businesses rather than employees dependent on CTG for their livelihood.


The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the black-car drivers were independent contractors and not employees under the FLSA and NYLL.

Key Takeaways

  1. The ‘economic reality’ test is crucial in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the FLSA.
  2. Significant autonomy in deciding when, where, and for whom to work suggests independent contractor status.
  3. Large investments in one’s business operations are indicative of being in business for oneself.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What factors indicate a worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee?

An individual is typically considered an independent contractor if they have control over their work, including when, where, and for whom it is performed. Additionally, if a worker makes substantial investment in their tools or resources and has the opportunity for profit or loss based on their managerial skill, these are strong indicators of an independent contractor status.

  • For example: A freelance graphic designer who sets his own schedule, chooses his clients, and invests in his own software and equipment is operating as an independent contractor.

How does investment in one's own business operations influence the determination of employee vs. independent contractor status?

Investment by workers in their business signifies that they bear the risk of loss and chances of profit, which is a typical trait of an independent contractor. This includes purchasing equipment, hiring assistants, or other actions showing that they manage a business independently.

  • For example: A photographer who buys her own camera gear, rents a studio space, and hires assistants for her photography business would likely be seen as an independent contractor.

In what ways might courts assess whether work performed by a worker is an integral part of the employer's business?

Courts look at how essential the work performed by the worker is to the core business of the employer. If the worker’s role is central to generating business profits and carrying out the company’s services, it may be more likely that they are considered an employee.

  • For example: A cashier at a supermarket is performing a role that is integral to the store’s operations and thus would usually be classified as an employee.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Torts