629 F.Supp.3d 963
D. Ariz.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Nicole Cox worked ~6 weeks as a part-time receptionist at Global Tool; her supervisor Bill Rozakis allegedly made persistent sexualized comments and inquired about being her “sugar daddy,” after which she stopped coming to work.
- Plaintiff contacted the EEOC on March 18, 2019, was told a 300-day filing window applied for federal claims, scheduled an intake, and filed a sworn EEOC charge on June 10, 2019; she received a Right-to-Sue letter on October 24, 2019 and sued in federal court.
- Pleaded claims: Count I Title VII hostile work environment (against Global Tool and Rozakis), Count II Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) sex discrimination, Count III constructive discharge under Arizona Employment Protection Act (EPA), Count IV Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED); plaintiff also sought to pierce the corporate veil as to Rozakis.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing (inter alia) that Global Tool did not meet Title VII’s 15-employee threshold (some workers were independent contractors), ACRA claims were untimely, constructive discharge depended on ACRA exhaustion, IIED damages were not severe, and Rozakis was not an alter ego.
- Court denied summary judgment as to Title VII against Global Tool (genuine disputes whether Global Tool had ≥15 employees and whether salespeople were independent contractors), but granted summary judgment dismissing Title VII as to Rozakis, and granted summary judgment in full on Counts II (ACRA), III (constructive discharge), and IV (IIED).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Global Tool is an "employer" under Title VII (≥15 employees) | Plaintiff says she observed ≥20 workers at the call center and that many were employees | Defendants rely on accountant letter, 2020 phone lines showing 10 lines, and 1099s to show fewer than 15 or independent contractors | Genuine dispute exists; summary judgment denied as to Global Tool on Title VII because material factual disputes (number and status) remain |
| Whether call-center salespeople were independent contractors (exclude from count) | Plaintiff contends workers had scheduled shifts, used company lines, paid weekly — indicia of employment | Defendants point to 1099 tax forms and classify them as contractors | Court finds Darden/Murray factors create triable issues; defendants failed to show as a matter of law they were independent contractors |
| Timeliness of ACRA claim (180-day rule) and equitable tolling | Plaintiff says initial EEOC email (Mar 18) or EEOC representations about 300 days make her ACRA charge timely | Defendants say the sworn EEOC charge filed June 10 was untimely for ACRA; EEOC expressly enforces federal law only | ACRA claim untimely; equitable tolling not warranted because EEOC did not misstate state deadline; summary judgment granted on Count II |
| Constructive discharge under Arizona law tied to ACRA exhaustion | Plaintiff admits constructive discharge rests on ACRA violation and administrative exhaustion | Defendants say failure to timely exhaust ACRA bars the constructive discharge claim | Because ACRA exhaustion failed, constructive discharge claim barred; summary judgment granted on Count III |
| IIED — severity of emotional distress required | Plaintiff cites crying, depression, anxiety, trust issues, weight changes | Defendants argue alleged symptoms are not severe under Arizona caselaw | Court holds claimed symptoms do not meet Arizona’s severe-distress threshold; summary judgment granted on Count IV |
| Alter-ego liability for Rozakis | Plaintiff points to alleged commingling and anecdotes about personal expenses | Defendants say no evidence Rozakis disregarded corporate form; lack of Gatecliff factors | Plaintiff failed to raise genuine dispute on unity of control/injustice; Rozakis dismissed from case as to Title VII |
| Attorneys’ fees request by defendants | N/A | Defendants contend counts were frivolous | Court declines fees; not frivolous though some claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment burden-shifting and the purpose of Rule 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (employee-count is an element of Title VII liability)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (test for employee vs. independent contractor focusing on control/economic realities)
- Murray v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 613 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing Darden factors used in the Ninth Circuit)
- EEOC v. Commercial Office Prods. Co., 486 U.S. 107 (1988) (recognizing the 300-day limit in deferral states)
- Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (worksharing/filing mechanics between state and federal agencies)
- Kyles v. Contractors/Engineers Supply, Inc., 190 Ariz. 403 (1997) (equitable tolling where agency misstates filing deadline)
- Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 170 Ariz. 34 (1991) (alter-ego factors: unity of control and injustice)
- Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38 (1987) (Arizona elements of IIED and discussion of severe emotional distress)