Eeoc v. Global Horizons, Inc
915 F.3d 631
9th Cir.2019Background
- In 2003 two Washington fruit growers (Green Acre, Valley Fruit) contracted Global Horizons to recruit H-2A temporary workers from Thailand; Global Horizons handled recruitment, housing, transportation, and payroll by contract but Growers managed orchard work.
- Thai workers alleged severe working, living, and transport conditions and discriminatory treatment compared to Mexican workers; two workers filed EEOC charges in 2006, EEOC sued under Title VII after investigation found reasonable cause.
- The district court held Growers were joint employers only for orchard-related matters and dismissed allegations tied to housing, meals, transportation, and wages; it limited discovery accordingly, later granted summary judgment for Growers on remaining claims, and awarded them attorney’s fees.
- EEOC appealed; Ninth Circuit addressed whether Title VII joint-employer liability should follow common-law agency principles and whether Growers could be joint employers for non-orchard-related matters required by the H-2A program.
- The Ninth Circuit held the common-law agency test governs Title VII joint-employer inquiries, concluded EEOC plausibly alleged Growers had ultimate control over H-2A non-wage benefits (so could be joint employers for non-orchard matters), and found EEOC plausibly alleged Green Acre knew about Global Horizons’ misconduct.
- Court reversed district court rulings: dismissal of non-orchard claims, denial of discovery on those matters, summary judgment, and award of fees; remanded with leave to amend as to Valley Fruit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate test for Title VII joint-employer status | Use common-law agency principles (control-focused) | Some favor economic-reality or hybrid test | Adopt common-law agency test (Darden/Clackamas) |
| Whether Growers were joint employers for non-orchard H-2A matters (housing, meals, transport, wages) | H-2A regs make those material terms of employment; Growers retained ultimate legal obligation and control despite contracting Global Horizons | Growers argue Global Horizons was the H-2A employer and contractual delegation absolved Growers | EEOC plausibly alleged Growers were joint employers for non-orchard matters due to regulatory obligations and ultimate control |
| Liability of a co-employer for discriminatory conduct of the other employer | Growers are liable if they knew/should have known and failed to take prompt corrective action | Growers argue they did not engage in or know of non-orchard discrimination | Apply negligence standard: co-employer liable if knew/should have known and failed to act; EEOC plausibly alleged Green Acre knew; Valley Fruit allegations need amendment |
| District court’s procedural rulings (dismissal, discovery limits, summary judgment, fees) | Orders premised on incorrect legal rule that Growers could not be liable for non-orchard matters | District court applied that rule to limit discovery and grant summary judgment and fees | Reversed and remanded: allow discovery and reconsideration; vacate fee award; grant leave to amend re: Valley Fruit |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (use common-law agency test to define employer)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (control is principal guidepost in employment relationship analysis)
- EEOC v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 351 F.3d 1270 (prior Ninth Circuit consideration of joint-employer issues)
- Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., 808 F.3d 208 (multiple- employer/joint-employer recognition)
- Butler v. Drive Automotive Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (joint-employer analysis)
- Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222 (co-employer liability principles)
- Whitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802 (co-employer liability standard)
- Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (employer liability for third-party workplace misconduct)
- Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958 (employer duty to remedy third-party harassment)
- Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (standard for awarding attorney’s fees in Title VII cases)