Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Scantland v. Jeffrey Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013): Provided the six-factor “economic reality” test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors under the FLSA. The court reiterated that no factor is dispositive, the list is non-exhaustive, and labels do not control. Scantland heavily influenced the reweighing: control, profit/loss, investment, permanency, and integrality pointed toward employee status.
• Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment Co., 527 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1976) (binding in the Eleventh Circuit): Reinforced that courts look to economic realities, not contractual possibilities, and that control over hours and schedules is relevant to “control.” The court used Usery to reject defendants’ attempt to confine “control” to narrow task-level supervision while ignoring scheduling, timesheets, and discipline tied to attendance.
• Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 1994) and Garcia-Celestino v. Ruiz Harvesting, Inc., 843 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016): Supply factors geared to identifying whether an entity is an “employer” (e.g., joint-employer analysis). The court clarified that Aimable’s emphasis is better suited to “who is the employer” questions; Scantland governs “is the worker an employee.” Overlap may be considered, but Scantland “drives” this case.
• Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992): The Supreme Court recognized the FLSA’s “striking breadth” of “employee” compared to common law agency. The Eleventh Circuit cited Darden to explain why tax or other statutory classifications are not determinative in the FLSA context.
• Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012): Endorsed evaluating relative investments (employer versus worker) to gauge economic dependence. The court relied on this approach to credit employer-supplied systems and software over workers’ common consumer tools.
• Brock v. Mr. W Fireworks, Inc., 814 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1987), and Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC, 781 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2015): Both support the proposition that common consumer items or pre-owned equipment do not demonstrate the kind of capital investment that reflects genuine business independence.
• Licensing cases (e.g., Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co.; Technic Services; Adelberg; Velarde): Cited to show that licensing alone does not settle status; while specialized skills can weigh toward contractor status, their significance depends on context, including who provided training and how the work relationship functioned in reality.

Legal Reasoning and Application of the Scantland Factors

1) Control over the manner of work

Control is “significant” if it shows the worker is not a “separate economic entity” in business for themself. Here, evidence (viewed favorably to the workers) showed TWIA and OCC:

• Set regimented hours, required timesheets, and could dock pay for absences or tardies not reported to both OCC and TWIA managers.
• Imposed day-to-day direction over tasks and, according to the adjusters, approval requirements for claim resolutions.
• During remote work, required prior authorization to work on Sundays, threatening release for violations; once remote, workers still effectively followed the same 7-day schedule constraints, save for the Sunday-approval gating.
• Potentially monitored performance with software tracking productivity metrics (the workers’ account is credited at the summary judgment stage).

The court rejected defendants’ attempt to distinguish “parameters” (scheduling) from “manner” of work. Under Scantland and Usery, scheduling, hours, and discipline tied to attendance are core indicia of control. This factor favored employee status.

2) Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill

The adjusters were paid fixed, nonnegotiable day rates. They could not increase revenue by initiative—no rate negotiation, “upselling,” or ability to expand business volume.

Defendants pointed to the workers’ personal expense management (food, lodging, transportation, communications) and tax deductions. The court held these are not meaningful avenues for profit tied to managerial skill in the business; they are mostly personal expenses, equally adjustable by employees and contractors. Nor do tax labels control under the FLSA’s economic reality test. This factor favored employee status.

3) Investment in equipment or materials and employment of workers

Relative investment favored the workers. OCC and TWIA supplied essential work tools—computers, phones, TWIA email addresses and signature blocks, ID badges, and access to proprietary systems, networks, and applications. Even when remote, the core systems/software remained employer-provided. By contrast, workers’ use of common items (home internet, cell phones, electricity, personal computers) does not signify substantial independent capital investment. The adjusters had no ability to hire sub-workers. This factor favored employee status.

4) Special skill

The adjusters arrived licensed and experienced, which can weigh toward independent-contractor status, particularly when training did not come from the putative employer. Although TWIA provided certification to meet statutory obligations and process familiarization, the baseline licensing and experience preceded the engagement. The court deemed this the only factor favoring contractor status, albeit not strongly dispositive.

5) Permanency and duration (including exclusivity)

Although labeled “temporary” and “standalone,” the assignment was indefinite at TWIA’s discretion and functionally at-will. The workers served approximately 18–24 months, did not service other clients while on the assignment (with Carpenter pausing to work elsewhere but not concurrently), and could extend the relationship. The court analogized to Usery’s one-year contracts renewed as a marker of permanence. Practical exclusivity and open-ended duration pointed to employee status.

6) Integrality of services to the business

Adjusting claims is central to TWIA’s core function as an insurer, and OCC exists to provide adjusters to insurers. Without adjusters, OCC has nothing to sell and TWIA cannot administer claims. This factor weighed heavily in favor of employee status for both entities.

Totality of circumstances and the economic reality

Beyond the factor count, the court returned to the ultimate inquiry—economic dependence. The adjusters worked full-time for a single entity for approximately two years under tightly defined hours and approvals; they had no realistic opportunity to control pay or build an independent book of business while engaged; and the employers supplied essential systems and dictated process. The court posed a cautionary observation: if economic dependence could not be found on these facts for a remote professional, it might never be possible—signaling that remote work does not undermine employee status where functional control and dependence persist.

Framework clarification: Scantland vs. Aimable

The court clarified that Scantland’s six factors “drive the analysis” in determining whether a worker is an employee under the FLSA. Aimable’s factors are better suited to identifying whether an entity is an “employer” (including joint-employment scenarios). Courts may consider overlapping Aimable insights where relevant, but the governing framework for employee status remains Scantland.

Impact and Implications

For remote and project-based professionals

• Remote work does not diminish FLSA protections. Where the putative employer sets schedules, requires approvals (e.g., Sunday work permissions), and supplies essential systems, control remains significant.
• Monitoring and productivity tracking, even if disputed, will be assessed in the workers’ favor at summary judgment if evidence supports it. Such monitoring may strongly support “control.”

For staffing firms and client companies (outsourcing arrangements)

• Labels in contracts (independent contractor, temporary, standalone) and tax treatment will not defeat FLSA coverage if the economic realities show dependence and control.
• Centrality of the worker’s services to the staffing firm’s “product” and to the client’s core operations weighs heavily toward employee status, especially when workers are the core deliverable.
• Approval requirements, nonnegotiable day rates, and practical exclusivity will push the analysis toward employee status and make summary judgment defense difficult.

On the “profit or loss” and “investment” factors

• Courts will discount “profit” arguments tied to personal spending (e.g., food, lodging, commuting) or tax deductions. The focus is whether the worker can increase revenue or profits through business initiative (rate-setting, upselling, expanding customer base) and whether the worker has made capital investments uncommon to personal life.
• Employer-provided software, networks, credentials, and tools carry substantial weight in showing dependence, even if workers use personal computers, cell phones, and home utilities.

Litigation posture and summary judgment

• This opinion underscores that misclassification cases frequently involve fact disputes inappropriate for summary judgment when multiple Scantland factors can favor employee status on the record.
• Defendants attempting to thread a narrow “control” argument by siloing scheduling and approvals as non-dispositive are unlikely to prevail in the Eleventh Circuit.

Wider doctrinal clarification

• Within the Eleventh Circuit, Scantland governs the employee-versus-contractor inquiry. Aimable remains relevant primarily for “who is the employer” disputes; overlap may be considered, but it is not the controlling test for employee status.
• The court’s reminder that FLSA’s definition of “employee” is broader than common law agency reaffirms that other statutory or tax classifications do not control FLSA coverage.