The Purple Land Management lawsuit most people are looking for is Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, L.L.C., a federal wage-and-hour case filed in January 2020 against the Fort Worth-based land services company. Heather Prinkey alleged the company misclassified workers as independent contractors and denied them overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was dismissed without prejudice on July 28, 2021, after the parties agreed to move the dispute into private arbitration.1CourtListener. Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, L.L.C.
Who Sued and Why
Prinkey filed her class and collective action complaint on January 17, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.2PACER Monitor. Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, LLC The claim was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, and sought unpaid overtime wages.3Bankrupt.com. Prinkey Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
The dispute came down to worker classification. Purple Land Management uses a mix of W-2 employees and 1099 independent contractors, and as of a 2016 profile roughly 80 percent of its workforce were petroleum landmen, split between about 200 company personnel and 100 contractors.4FWTX. Purple Power Prinkey’s suit argued that workers labeled as contractors were, in economic reality, employees entitled to overtime under federal law.
How the Case Moved Through Court
Purple Land Management answered the complaint and filed a partial motion to dismiss in February 2020. Prinkey then filed an amended complaint in March, which mooted the motion. In April 2020 the case was transferred by consent to the Northern District of Texas, where the company is headquartered, and reassigned to Judge Mark T. Pittman in the Fort Worth Division as case number 4:20-cv-00361.1CourtListener. Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, L.L.C.
The class dimension of the case did not survive long. On October 21, 2020, Judge Pittman struck the class action allegations because Prinkey had not moved for class certification within the 90-day window required by the Northern District of Texas’s local rules.1CourtListener. Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, L.L.C. From that point on, the litigation was Prinkey’s individual claim, not a case on behalf of a broader group of workers.
The court referred the parties to mediation in May 2021. By late July the two sides had agreed to take the matter out of federal court. They filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice in favor of arbitration on July 28, 2021, and the court entered final judgment closing the case.1CourtListener. Prinkey v. Purple Land Management, L.L.C.
What “Dismissed Without Prejudice” Means Here
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the court never decided whether Purple Land Management’s contractors were misclassified. The claims were not resolved on the merits, and in theory could be refiled. The parties’ agreement to arbitrate indicates the dispute was intended to be handled privately rather than relitigated in court, so there is no public ruling from Prinkey’s case that tells you how a judge would have come out on the classification question.
An Earlier Classification Suit Against the Company
Prinkey was not the first time Purple Land Management faced a classification challenge. In July 2014, Phillip David Haskett, a registered professional landman, sued Purple Land Management along with Continental Land Resources and Western Land Services in the Southern District of Texas. Haskett alleged age discrimination and asked the court to declare that landman positions advertised as contractor roles were really employee positions, which would place them under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.5GovInfo. Haskett v. Continental Land Resources, Memorandum and Recommendation
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal in February 2015, calling the complaint “seriously deficient” for failing to identify specific jobs Haskett applied for, to allege he was passed over for younger applicants, or to plead facts showing the positions were employee roles.6GovInfo. Haskett v. Continental Land Resources, Order As with Prinkey, the court never reached the substance of whether landmen should be classified as employees.
Why Landman Classification Keeps Being Litigated
Both cases sit inside a long-running industry argument about whether landmen are properly treated as contractors. Under federal law, courts apply an “economic reality” test that looks at the actual working relationship rather than the label on the contract. Factors include how much control the company exercises, whether the worker has a real chance at profit or loss, how permanent the relationship is, who supplies tools, and how central the work is to the company’s business. A 1099 tax form and a contract calling the worker an independent contractor are not controlling.7U.S. Department of Labor. Fact Sheet 13: Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
The Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, has gone both ways. In Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling (2018), the court upheld contractor status for drilling consultants. In Hobbs v. Petroplex Pipe and Construction (2020), the same court held that pipe welders were employees owed overtime, pointing to the company setting their hours, prohibiting outside work, and giving them no room to negotiate pay.8Jackson Walker. Independent Contractors Redux: Hobbs Petroplex A 2008 Utah appellate decision found a landman who worked exclusively from the company’s office, had a non-compete, and bore no financial risk was an employee rather than a contractor.9Holland & Hart. Utah Court Decides Landman Is Employee, Not Independent Contractor
For workers who believe they have been misclassified and denied overtime, the takeaway from Prinkey is narrower than it might look. The case ended without a merits ruling, and the shift to arbitration means whatever outcome Prinkey reached is not part of the public record. Anyone weighing a similar claim will have their situation measured against the economic reality factors the courts actually use, not against how the Purple Land Management litigation was labeled or resolved.