Mejia

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

As pertinent to this appeal, plaintiffs are unlicensed flooring installers, who installed floors on behalf of defendant, Roussos Construction Inc., a general contractor. The dispute at trial largely turned on the status and function of three individuals who stood in between plaintiffs and Roussos. Plaintiffs called them “supervisors”; Roussos called them “subcontractors.” At trial, Roussos maintained that it used independent subcontractors (the three supervisors/subcontractors) who were licensed to perform work not permitted by Roussos’ contractor’s license. Those subcontractors hired and paid the plaintiffs, and according to Roussos, any mistakes in categorizing the flooring installers or complying with labor laws were solely the subcontractors’. Plaintiffs maintained that Roussos had employed a misclassification scheme, whereby it placed a “man in the middle” between the company and the flooring installation employees. By classifying the flooring installers as subcontractors, Roussos avoided having to provide them with benefits or complying with labor laws. All three supervisors/subcontractors testified at trial. One testified that he…