United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2122 ERIC R. BRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 20-cv-01049-WCG — William C. Griesbach, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 21, 2022 — DECIDED AUGUST 3, 2022 ____________________

Before HAMILTON and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. * HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Eric Brant ap- peals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Schneider National, Inc. and its two subsidiaries (together,

* Circuit Judge Kanne was a member of the panel that heard argument in this case but died on June 16, 2022. He did not participate in the decision of this case, which is being resolved under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) by a quorum of the panel. 2 No. 21-2122 “Schneider”). Schneider is engaged in the business of hauling freight and hires some drivers as employees, while bringing others on as purported independent contractors. Brant hauled freight for Schneider under an agreement that labeled him as an independent contractor in 2018 and 2019. Brant came to believe, however, that Schneider was engaged in a scheme to misclassify his employment status, and he filed this suit. Brant claims that Schneider (i) violated minimum wage re- quirements under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law; (ii) unjustly enriched itself under Wisconsin law; and (iii) violated federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations. The district court granted Schneider’s motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings. Brant appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. The dis- trict court erred by giving decisive effect to the terms of Schneider’s contracts. In many areas of the law, the district court’s approach would be sound, but not under the Fair La- bor Standards Act. As explained below, in determining whether a person is an employee under the Act, what matters is the economic reality of the working relationship, not neces- sarily the terms of a written contract. “The FLSA is designed to defeat rather than implement contractual arrangements.” Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1544−45 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbrook, J., concurring). Brant’s allegations about the economic reality of his working relationship with Schnei- der state a viable claim under the FLSA, as well as under the other laws he relies upon. I. Factual and Procedural Background Schneider is a major motor carrier and in 2019 oversaw thousands of trucks in its freight business. Schneider hires No. 21-2122 3 most of its drivers as employees, but in 2020 it designated more than a quarter of its drivers as independent contractors. In the industry, such contractors are referred to as “owner- operators.” They frequently own their own trucks and drive for carriers as they choose. Owning a truck for hauling freight requires a significant capital investment, and Schneider sought to recruit drivers who had not independently made that investment by leasing Schneider’s trucks to some drivers who would then drive for Schneider under contract. Brant be- came an “owner-operator” under such an arrangement with Schneider, and he worked for the carrier from December 2018 to August 2019. Brant’s relationship with Schneider involved two related contracts: (i) the Lease, under which he leased a relatively new Freightliner truck from Schneider; and (ii) the Operating Agreement, under which Brant would lease the truck back to Schneider