Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
410 U.S. 512, 93 S. Ct. 1138, 35 L. Ed. 2d 463 (1973)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Arnheim & Neely, Inc. (Arnheim) (defendant) managed eight office buildings and an apartment complex in Pittsburgh. Under Arnheim’s contracts with the buildings’ various owners, Arnheim was responsible for obtaining tenants, negotiating leases, collecting rents, and generally managing and maintaining the properties. As part of those general management services, Arnheim handled the hiring, firing, supervision, and payroll for supervisory, maintenance, and janitorial staffs at the properties. Arnheim scheduled the workers, set compensation and fringe benefits, and engaged in collective bargaining with unionized employees, all subject to approval from the property owners. Arnheim maintained a separate bank account for each property but managed all the operations from a single office. Peter Brennan, United States secretary of labor (secretary) (plaintiff), brought an action against Arnheim alleging violations of the minimum-wage, overtime, and recordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with respect to maintenance, custodial, and operational workers at the properties. The district court found, among other things, that Arnheim’s aggregate activities at all nine locations were an enterprise for purposes of the FLSA. The appellate court reversed, finding that the building owners were unrelated and had no common business purpose. The United States Supreme Court granted the secretary’s petition for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.