Danciu v. Brighter Choice Foundation, Inc.
1:12-cv-01496
N.D.N.Y.Jul 15, 2013Background
- Danciu sues Brighter Choice Foundation and Brighter Choice Charter School for Girls under Title VII and FMLA.
- Plaintiff alleges race and pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination prior to maternity leave.
- Foundation moves for summary judgment arguing it is not an employer and not a joint/single employer with the School.
- Plaintiff moves under Rule 56(d) seeking discovery to determine the relationship between the Foundation and the School.
- Court denies summary judgment, finding discovery is needed to resolve whether the entities are a single or joint employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foundation is an employer or joint/single employer | Foundation and School are a single/joint employer; Foundation employed plaintiff. | Foundation is not plaintiff's employer; no joint/single employer relationship. | Material facts require discovery; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether discovery should be allowed under Rule 56(d) | Discovery will reveal agreements and personnel overlap establishing employer relationship. | No need for further discovery; summary judgment appropriate. | Rule 56(d) satisfied; discovery to proceed and summary judgment denied. |
| Whether overlap in personnel shows joint employment | Overlap (e.g., shared officers) suggests common control and employment status. | Limited overlap; independent entities. | Additional information needed; cannot determine joint employment yet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (standard for summary judgment control and factual disputes)
- O'Hara v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 642 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards; discovery considerations)
- Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (pre-discovery denial; importance of opportunity to obtain evidence)
- Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 891 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1989) (rule 56(d) affidavit requirements)
- Gurary v. Winehouse, 190 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1999) (requirements for affidavits under Rule 56(d))
- Hoffmann v. Airquip Heating & Air Conditioning, 480 F. App’x 110 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 56(d) considerations on discovery)
- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1985) (timing of discovery requests and motions for summary judgment)