Case 1.1 Schultz V. Capital International Security, Incorporated 460 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 2006)

333 Words2 Pages
Case 1.1 Schultz v. Capital International Security, Incorporated 460 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 2006) Facts: The plaintiff-agents provided security services for the Prince and his family at the Prince’s Virginia residence in twelve-hour shifts. The agents were paid a daily rate for each shift; they received no extra pay for overtime. The agents had a command post at the residence, from which they observed security camera monitors, answered the telephone, and kept a daily log of all arrivals and departures. They also made hourly walks of the property, ensured that members of the Prince’s family were safe when departing and arriving, sorted mail, and performed various tasks upon request of the Prince’s family. In addition to their security duties, the agents were responsible for having the household’s vehicles washed and fueled, making wake up calls, moving furniture, and doing research on the Internet. The Prince’s long-time driver and travel agent, Sammy Hebri, formed a company called Capital International Security, Inc. (CIS). Hebri started CIS for the purpose of replacing FAM as the Prince’s security contractor. Hebri sent a memo (dated July 24, 2002) to the agents directing them to obtain their own private security business licenses from the VDCJS and individual liability insurance so they could be classified as independent contractors. Issue: The issue is whether the bodyguards were considered to be employees or independent contractors for the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Decision: Judgment for Schultz. Reasoning: The five plaintiff-agents were employees under the FLSA. Because defendant CIS was one of their joint employers along with the Prince, CIS is jointly and severally liable for the payment of any overtime required by the FLSA during the agents’ employment. The Fourth Circuit applied the Silk test to determine the

More about Case 1.1 Schultz V. Capital International Security, Incorporated 460 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 2006)

Open Document