Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp. Case Brief

District Court, S.D. New York2003Docket #2427862
255 F. Supp. 2d 184 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 985 2003 WL 173957

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A drugstore chain and its staffing agency classified delivery workers as independent contractors. The court found they were actually employees and that both the agency and the drugstore were “joint employers” liable for minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Legal Significance: This case is a key application of the “economic reality” test for establishing joint employer liability under the FLSA, holding that a company outsourcing labor can be liable for wage violations if it exercises sufficient control over the workers and their work is integral to its business.

Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Defendant Duane Reade, a large drugstore chain, outsourced its delivery needs by contracting with the Hudson/Chelsea defendants. Hudson/Chelsea hired plaintiffs, a class of mostly unskilled immigrant workers, to make deliveries from Duane Reade stores. Hudson/Chelsea paid the workers a flat rate of $20-$30 per day, far below the minimum wage, and classified them as independent contractors, issuing them IRS Forms 1099. Although hired and paid by Hudson/Chelsea, the workers reported daily to their assigned Duane Reade store. Duane Reade managers directed their delivery tasks, provided instructions, and maintained logs of their work. When not making deliveries, the workers were directed by Duane Reade personnel to perform in-store tasks such as stocking shelves, bagging groceries, and providing security. If a worker’s performance was unsatisfactory, the Duane Reade manager would request that Hudson/Chelsea reassign them. The plaintiffs sued both Hudson/Chelsea and Duane Reade, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, were the delivery workers employees rather than independent contractors, and was the drugstore chain a joint employer along with the hiring agency, making both entities liable for wage and hour violations?

Yes. The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, were the delivery workers employees rather than independent contractors, and was the drugstore chain a joint employer along with the hiring agency, making both entities liable for wage and hour violations?

Conclusion

This case illustrates the expansive reach of the FLSA's joint employer doctrine, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation u

Legal Rule

To determine employment status under the FLSA, courts apply the "economic reality" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor

Legal Analysis

The court first applied the five-factor "economic reality" test from *Brock v. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute iru

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Delivery workers hired by a staffing agency but directed by a
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?