SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Washington, DC Case Summary
Eckington House Mental Health Servs., LLC v. Office of Wage-Hour
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 23-AA-0194
Decided: November 13, 2025
Contractual language identifying an individual as an “Independent Contractor” was not adequate to overcome the classification of that worker as an “Employee.”
Background
Petitioner is a medical services provider focusing on supportive living and personal care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, funded through Medicaid waiver programs with the District of Columbia. An individual performing services on behalf of Petitioner (“the Worker”) submitted a Complaint to the Office of Wage-Hour (“OWH”), alleging a failure to pay overtime wages owed under the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act (“DCMWA”). The OWH determined that the Worker was an employee and therefore subject to the provisions and protections of the DCMWA.
Petitioner appealed that ruling to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), which upheld the determination of the OWH that the Worker was an employee, and was therefore owed backpay for uncompensated overtime. Petitioner motioned for reconsideration, which was granted in part, though the Court upheld the determination that the Worker was an employee. Petitioner appealed.
Holding
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the OAH’s determination that the Worker was an employee, despite the contractual language between the Worker and the Petitioner clearly stated that the role was one of an independent contractor. The standard for determining the identity of a worker as between an employee and an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) uses an eight-factor analysis, including the following: (1) the degree of control the employer has over the employee, (2) the employee’s opportunity for profit or loss based on their skill, (3) the employee’s personal investment in required equipment, (4) whether the services require a special skill, (5) the permanency of the working relationship, (6) the degree to which the employee’s work is integral to the employer’s business, (7) whether the work is the regular business of the employer, and (8) whether the parties believed they were entering into an employer-employee relationship.
The dispute turned on the eighth factor: whether the parties believed they were entering into an employer-employee relationship. Petitioner insisted that because the contract used language describing the relationship as one of an independent contractor, such definition of the relationship should “overshadow” the remaining factors. Many facts in the record in this case, such as an oral “hiring” preceding the written contract items, or the alleged passivity of the Worker in completing the forms provided to her by the Petitioner, reflected on the Court’s determination that the mere on-paper statement that the Worker was an independent contractor was not dispositive. Also relevant were the unsuccessful attempts of the employer to distance itself from an employer-employee relationship with the Worker, by regularly describing the work performed as “professional,” such as “professional services,” or a “professional capacity.” The Court of Appeals determined that the OAH correctly decided that there was an employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Worker, which gave rise to liability for unpaid overtime, and although withdrawn on reconsideration, the exposure to liability for fines paid to the district beyond the amount of unpaid overtime.
Questions about this case can be directed to Joseph Mooradian at (202) 318-1751 or jmooradian@tthlaw.com.