FAUSH v. TUESDAY MORNING, INC., 2:12-cv-07137

Plaintiff Matthew Faush (a Labor Ready temporary worker) was assigned to work at a Tuesday Morning store for ten days in May 2011 and alleges he and other African‑American coworkers were terminated because of their race.
Labor Ready (a staffing agency) and Tuesday Morning had a written Agreement and incorporated Terms and Conditions governing temporary workers; Labor Ready retained responsibility for hiring, paying wages, taxes, and workers' compensation.
Labor Ready issued time cards, set pay rates, paid Faush, and did not provide Faush's SSN to Tuesday Morning; Tuesday Morning never paid wages, provided benefits, or entered into any employment contract with Faush.
Tuesday Morning had contractual restrictions (via the Agreement) limiting use of temporary workers (e.g., no unattended premises, no operating machinery without permission).
Plaintiff sued Tuesday Morning under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the PHRA for racial discrimination; Tuesday Morning moved for summary judgment arguing it was not Faush’s employer and thus not liable.
The court granted Tuesday Morning’s motion for summary judgment, holding Faush was not Tuesday Morning’s employee and therefore Title VII/PHRA/§1981 claims fail.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tuesday Morning was Faush's employer for Title VII/PHRA	Apply the joint‑employer test (In re Enterprise) to find Tuesday Morning an employer	Use the Darden common‑law agency/master‑servant test; Tuesday Morning lacked control and did not employ/pay Faush	Tuesday Morning was not Faush's employer under Darden; summary judgment for defendant
Whether the joint‑employer/FLSA‑style test controls	Enterprise's joint‑employer analysis should govern employer status	Enterprise applies to FLSA (broad definition); Title VII is narrower so Darden controls	Court declined Enterprise test; Darden governs Title VII/PHRA analysis
Whether Faush has a § 1981 contractual relationship with Tuesday Morning	Faush alleges denial of benefits of a contractual relationship due to race	No contract existed between Faush and Tuesday Morning; § 1981 analyzed like Title VII here	§ 1981 claim fails for same reason as Title VII (no employer/contract)
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given record evidence	Plaintiff contended joint‑employer theory; did not present facts sufficient to show Darden factors favor employer status	Tuesday Morning produced Agreement and evidence showing Labor Ready controlled hiring, pay, benefits, tax treatment, and assignment terms	Summary judgment appropriate: plaintiff failed to produce specific facts creating a genuine dispute on employer status

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (construing employer status under Title VII via common‑law agency/master‑servant factors)
In re Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir.) (applies broad/joint‑employer analysis under the FLSA)
Haybarger v. Lawrence Cnty. Adult Probation & Parole, 667 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting Title VII defines "employer" more narrowly than FLSA/FMLA)
Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2009) (PHRA and Title VII claims are interpreted coextensively for employer status)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation principles)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and required showing to defeat it)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 ("genuine issue" standard for summary judgment)
Holtzman v. The World Book Co., Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D. Pa.) (§ 1981 claim dismissed where Title VII employer status fails)