Alexander Ramsey v. Amway Corporation
19-56203
| 9th Cir. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Alexander Ramsey sued Amway Corp., Alticor, Inc., and former supervisor Farouque Khattak for employment discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and Ramsey appealed.
- Undisputed employment records showed Ramsey was hired by Access Business Group, LLC (ABG): his offer letter named ABG, his onboarding form listed ABG, ABG issued his W-2s and paychecks, and his resume listed Nutrilite (a DBAs for ABG).
- Ramsey argued Amway, Alticor, and ABG were a single integrated enterprise, entitling him to hold the parent companies liable for employment claims against the subsidiary.
- The Ninth Circuit required evidence on four integrated-enterprise factors (centralized labor control, interrelated operations, common management, common ownership/financial control) and found Ramsey failed to show Amway/Alticor exercised day-to-day control over ABG.
- Ramsey’s FEHA claim against Khattak was held time-barred because Ramsey filed his DFEH complaint in 2017 while Khattak ceased employment in 2014; the court rejected Ramsey’s continuing-violation argument.
- The court also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramsey a continuance to obtain additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amway/Alticor were Ramsey’s employers | Ramsey contends Amway/Alticor employed him or are liable through integration | Amway/Alticor argue ABG was the employer; payroll and onboarding show ABG employed Ramsey | Court: ABG was Ramsey’s employer; summary judgment for Amway/Alticor affirmed |
| Whether Amway/Alticor and ABG form an integrated enterprise | Ramsey: parent companies and ABG function as a single employer | Defendants: Ramsey produced insufficient evidence of centralized control or management overlap | Court: Ramsey failed to meet four-factor integrated-enterprise test; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Khattak is personally liable under FEHA despite delay | Ramsey: continuing violation or actions tied to employer conduct extend limitations | Khattak: DFEH filing prerequisite and one-year limitations bar claims against him | Court: FEHA claims against Khattak time-barred; continuing-violation doctrine does not save claim |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying continuance | Ramsey: needed more time/evidence to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: no abuse; record sufficient for summary judgment | Court: no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- L. F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. #414, 947 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Laird v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 727 (1998) (integrated-enterprise factors to disregard corporate form)
- Carroll v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 41 Cal. App. 5th 805 (2019) (DFEH filing is a prerequisite to FEHA suit and establishes the one-year limitations window)
- Willis v. City of Carlsbad, 48 Cal. App. 5th 1104 (2020) (explaining the continuing-violation doctrine and its aggregation rule)
- Campidoglio LLC v. Wells Fargo & Co., 870 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2017) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for abuse of discretion on motions for continuance)