Contract analysis

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum supplements the initial case assessment memorandum dated May 9, 2025, by providing a detailed analysis of plaintiff Marcus Delano's parallel state-law claims under the Texas Payday Law ("TPL"), codified at Texas Labor Code Chapter 61, and related provisions of the Texas Labor Code. The initial memorandum addressed the FLSA collective action theories and the federal economic realit

II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Posture Marcus Delano filed his complaint in this action on April 30, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the Texas Payday Law, Texas Labor Code Chapter 61, as supplemental state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The case was assigned to the Honorable Re

III. OVERVIEW OF THE TEXAS PAYDAY LAW (TEXAS LABOR CODE CHAPTER 61) A. Statutory Framework The Texas Payday Law is codified at Texas Labor Code §§ 61.001 through 61.095. The TPL is the primary Texas statute governing the timing, manner, and payment of wages by employers to employees. It establishes the obligation of employers to pay wages in a timely manner, prescribes the frequency and method of wage payments, and p

IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE UNDER TEXAS LAW A. Texas Common-Law "Right of Control" Test Texas courts employ the common-law "right of control" test — not the FLSA's "economic reality" test — to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of state-law claims, including claims under the Texas Payday Law. The distinction between the two tests is analytically significant, eve

V. INTERACTION BETWEEN FLSA AND TEXAS STATE-LAW THEORIES A. Supplemental Jurisdiction The federal court's jurisdiction over Delano's Texas state-law claims rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are "so related to claims in the action within [the court's] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." The FLSA claims and