Lasater v. Gardner, 15959

• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Writing for the Court: WILKINS; CROCKETT
• Citation: 609 P.2d 932
• Parties: 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1165, 88 Lab.Cas. P 33,890 Gary A. LASATER, Benjamin S. Crass, Paul D. Wilson, Joseph Rex Shultz, Steven Tophan and Steve Irving, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Jay GARDNER and Charles R. Sadler, individuals; and Seagull Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a KMOR Radio, Defendants and Appellants.
• Docket Number: No. 15959,15959
• Decision Date: 06 March 1980

Page 932

609 P.2d 932 24 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1165, 88 Lab.Cas. P 33,890 Gary A. LASATER, Benjamin S. Crass, Paul D. Wilson, Joseph
Rex Shultz, Steven Tophan and Steve Irving,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
Jay GARDNER and Charles R. Sadler, individuals; and Seagull
Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a KMOR Radio, Defendants
and Appellants. No. 15959. Supreme Court of Utah. March 6, 1980.

Page 933

Gary A. Frank, Murray, for defendants and appellants.

D. Kendall Perkins, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

WILKINS, Justice:

This is an appeal from judgment granted plaintiffs in the Third District Court for the State of Utah, which ruled, so far as this appeal is concerned, that Defendant Jay Gardner (hereafter "Gardner") was an "employer" as that word is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, ¹ and awarding Plaintiffs Gary A. Lasater (hereafter "Lasater") and Steve Irving (hereafter "Irving") unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. Only issues relating to Lasater, Irving, and Gardner are before us on this appeal.

Lasater, Irving, and Gardner were employees of Defendant Seagull Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a KMOR Radio. Gardner was the radio station's vice president and its general manager. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs on two theories: first, that the corporate defendant was the alter ego of the individual defendants and therefore the individual defendants were liable for wages owing; and second, that there was a contractual agreement between the parties under which wages were due and owing to the plaintiffs.

The only allegation which relates to the Fair Labor Standards Act appears in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' first cause of action which alleges in part: "Jurisdiction is granted at court by 29 United States Code, § 216(b)."

The District Court granted judgment against Gardner personally based on the conclusion that he was an "employer" within the terms of § 203(d) of the Act. Defendant Gardner maintains that the District Court erred in applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to the services performed by Lasater and Irving in their employment. We agree.

According to the United States Supreme Court, the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act

. . . was to aid the unprotected, unorganized and lowest paid of the nation's working population; that is, those employees who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves...