Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—D.D.C.: IT writer’s claim for unpaid, unreported wages may proceed to trial, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The writer raised material fact questions as to whether he and the corporations with whom he worked had an employer-employee relationship, and whether his records of overtime hours worked but not reported established his claim.

IBM and an IT staffing company were denied their motions for summary judgment against the overtime claims of a technical writer. The writer, who had been retained by the IT staffing firm to provide services for a corporation that had a contract with a federal government agency, raised material fact issues on his FLSA claim for unpaid overtime compensation, ruled the federal district court for the District of Columbia (Greer v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00948-SLS (D. D.C. July 29, 2026)).

Provision of IT services. The technical writer brought suit for unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA and D.C. law against IBM, that provides infrastructure, software, and consulting services for private and government clients as well as Viva, a company specializing in IT consulting and staffing solutions The summary judgment evidence showed that the writer had been contacted by Viva about providing technical writing services to IBM as part of a contract that IBM had with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Viva sought to hire the writer as a standard “W-2 employee,” but he instead asked Viva to set up a corporation-to-corporation agreement between Viva and the writer’s own S-corporation (ACI). Viva agreed, and the two corporations executed a “Subcontractor Agreement” which obligated ACI to provide IT consulting and programming services to Viva’s client—IBM—through the writer.

‘Subcontractor agreement.’ The agreement provided that ACI would be paid “for each approved hour worked,” including for “each overtime hour, approved in advance as billable to” the client. ACI agreed that it would “submit invoices for payment... at the end of every billing period” that specified the “number of hours of Services” rendered by its consultant to the client that were “substantiated” by “time sheets” approved by the client. ACI also agreed that it was an independent subcontractor, and neither it nor its consultant was “serving as an employee” of Viva or the client.

Unpaid overtime. The writer worked continuously on IBM’s contract with the EPA until his termination by IBM three-and-one-half years later. In his lawsuit, he alleged that he had worked many overtime hours but had not included them on his time sheets or invoices because Viva and IBM had instructed him not to do so if he wanted to keep his job. After his termination, the writer himself (not ACI) submitted an invoice for $49,000 for 1,000 hours of “off-the-clock” work that he claimed IBM had “made [him] do” over the three-and-one-half years. Viva did not pay that invoice.

Before the court were IBM’s and Viva’s motions for summary judgment.

Prima facie case. The defendants’ main contention was that the writer had not made out a prima facie case for unpaid wages. The court addressed the elements of the prima facie case in turn:

Employer-employee relationship. To prevail on his claims, the writer was required by the FLSA and the relevant D.C. statutes to prove that he was employed by the defendants and that he performed work for them for which he was inadequately compensated. In determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists, courts examine the “economic reality” of the relationship rather than rely on “technical concepts” such as the labels the parties attach to their relationship.

Under the economic reality inquiry, courts consider a number of factors, including the degree of control exercised by the putative employer over the worker. In this case, the record contained evidence that IBM supervised and controlled the writer’s work conditions and performance on a daily basis. The writer testified on deposition that the IBM Program Managers “dictated” everything he did, from his daily and weekly assignments to the way that he completed them, with one manager in particular (the “micromanager”) critiquing “every last detail of... what I was ordered to do.” The managers restricted him to a “maximum 40-hour paid workweek” but gave him assignments they knew would require him to work beyond 40 hours in a week.

Evidence in the record also indicated that IBM, as well as Viva, had the power to hire and fire the writer. Indeed, it was the “micromanager” at IBM who informed him that he was terminated. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the writer, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the writer was not the defendants’ employee.

Evidence of unreported work hours. The writer’s own sworn testimony and contemporaneous records supported his claim that he had worked overtime hours even though he had not reported them. Additionally, he had communicated to IBM and Viva personnel that he was working well beyond regular hours but was told not to complain “or else.” Records also showed that he was often logged into the EPA’s virtual private network (VPN) for more than 40 hours each workweek. On this evidence, a rational jury could conclude that he had performed work for which he was not properly compensated.

Putative employer’s knowledge. The writer also presented evidence that IBM “knew or had reason to believe” that he had worked the hours for which he was not compensated. In addition to his complaints to Viva personnel, the writer testified that there was no way the micromanager could have been unaware of his overtime work because he routinely assigned him work during end-of-day workday meetings that was due at the beginning or during the following workday, making it impossible for the writer to complete the work during regular workday hours. On this record, a jury could reasonably conclude that IBM and Viva had been aware that the writer was working overtime.

For these and other reasons, the court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-00948-SLS.

Judge: Sooknanan, S.

Attorneys: Stephen Fowler (District Legal Group) for Gregory Gerard Greer. Andrew Joseph Bellwoar (Jackson Lewis) for International Business Machines Corp. and Viva USA, Inc.

Companies: International Business Machines Corp.; Viva USA, Inc.

Cases: WageHour Overtime WorkingTime DistrictofColumbiaNews