Canon v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning
133 F. Supp. 3d 865
S.D. Miss.2015Background
- Michael Canon, an Iranian-origin longtime JSU math instructor, sued under Title VII alleging national-origin and race discrimination and retaliation by his supervisor, Tor A. Kwembe, and named both Jackson State University (JSU) and the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) as defendants.
- Canon alleged poor evaluations, lower pay, harassment, and nonrenewal of contract tied to his national origin and prior EEOC complaints; he filed multiple EEOC charges and received right-to-sue notices before suing.
- IHL moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Canon failed to plead any facts showing IHL’s involvement or that IHL was his employer, and that Canon failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to IHL.
- The court analyzed whether IHL could be treated as Canon’s employer under Title VII—considering the hybrid economic-realities/common-law control test for single-entity employment and the single/joint-employer doctrines for related entities—and whether those doctrines apply to governmental subdivisions.
- Although Mississippi law vests contracting authority in IHL (so formal employment contracts arise via IHL), IHL’s bylaws delegate nonrenewal decisions for non-tenure-track faculty to the institutions; Canon’s complaint attributes the challenged employment actions to his JSU supervisor, not IHL.
- The court concluded (1) under Fifth Circuit precedent single- and joint-employer theories are generally inapplicable to governmental subdivisions, and (2) even on the facts alleged, IHL was not the employer responsible for the challenged actions; additionally, Canon failed to exhaust administrative remedies against IHL. IHL’s motion to dismiss was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IHL is an "employer" liable under Title VII for Canon’s alleged discrimination and retaliation | IHL was Canon’s employer (or sufficiently interrelated with JSU) and thus a proper Title VII defendant | IHL is a separate legal entity with no involvement in the challenged employment decisions and was not named in EEOC charges | IHL is not an employer for the challenged acts; dismissal granted |
| Whether single-employer or joint-employer doctrines apply to governmental subdivisions to impute employer status | (Canon) Implicitly urged that interrelation with JSU makes IHL liable under single/joint employer theory | IHL argued those doctrines do not apply and, even if they did, facts don’t show IHL made employment decisions here | Court followed Fifth Circuit view that these doctrines generally do not apply to governmental subdivisions and found no basis to treat IHL as employer |
| Whether the hybrid economic-realities/common-law control test could make IHL Canon’s employer | Canon implied that formal contracting authority or interrelatedness creates employer status | IHL noted JSU exercised control over the specific employment actions (evaluations, pay, nonrenewal) per IHL bylaws | Hybrid test confirms JSU (not IHL) is the functional employer for the contested actions; IHL not liable |
| Whether Canon exhausted administrative remedies as to IHL | Canon did not argue exhaustion as to IHL in response | IHL argued Canon never named IHL in EEOC charges and thus failed to exhaust | Court held Canon failed to exhaust against IHL; naming/notice requirement not satisfied, so dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007) (Title VII liability limited to employers and agents)
- Oden v. Oktibbeha County, 246 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2001) (employment-relationship principles under Title VII)
- Muhammad v. Dallas County Community Supervision & Corrections Dept., 479 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2007) (statutory definition of "employer" under Title VII)
- Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1983) (single-employer integrated-enterprise factors and critical focus on who made final employment decisions)
- Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1965) (single-employer/joint-employer context)
- Dumas v. Town of Mount Vernon, 612 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1980) (governmental subdivisions and limits on single-employer analysis)
- E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki Ltd., 767 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2014) (naming requirement and exceptions for unnamed parties in EEOC charges)
- Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2015) (joint employer must bear responsibility for the discriminatory act to be liable)