Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc.
995 F. Supp. 2d 350
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Matthew Faush (plaintiff) worked as a temporary employee supplied by Labor Ready at a Tuesday Morning store for several days in May 2011 and alleges racial discrimination/termination.
- Labor Ready (staffing agency) assigned Faush, issued his timecards, set/payroll rates, paid wages, and maintained taxes/workers’ compensation per a written Agreement with Tuesday Morning.
- Tuesday Morning never hired Faush, paid his wages, provided benefits, received his SSN, or entered any contract with him; Labor Ready invoiced Tuesday Morning for hours worked.
- Plaintiff sued Tuesday Morning under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the PHRA seeking relief for race-based termination.
- Tuesday Morning moved for summary judgment arguing Faush was not its employee (and had no contract with it for § 1981), so it cannot be liable under Title VII, the PHRA, or § 1981.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tuesday Morning, applying the Darden common‑law agency test and finding no employment or joint‑employer relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tuesday Morning was Faush’s “employer” for Title VII/PHRA | Apply joint‑employer test (In re Enterprise) to find joint employer status | Apply Darden common‑law agency factors; no employer relationship | Court applied Darden and held Tuesday Morning was not Faush’s employer |
| Whether Title VII/PHRA liability can attach absent an employment relationship | Faush contends joint employer doctrine can extend liability | Liability requires employer status; staffing agency was employer | Court held Title VII/PHRA claims fail because Faush was employed by Labor Ready, not Tuesday Morning |
| Whether § 1981 claim survives without a contract with Tuesday Morning | Plaintiff alleges denial of contractual benefits by Tuesday Morning | No contract existed between Faush and Tuesday Morning; § 1981 requires contractual relation | Court dismissed § 1981 claim for same reason as Title VII (no contract/employment) |
| Proper test for temporary‑worker situations: FLSA joint‑employer vs Title VII Darden test | In re Enterprise (FLSA) joint‑employer standard should control | In re Enterprise is FLSA‑specific; Title VII uses narrower Darden test | Court held In re Enterprise is inapposite and Title VII uses Darden; thus Darden controls |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp. Pracs. Litig., 683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2012) (applies an expansive FLSA joint‑employer analysis; court found FLSA context distinct)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (adopts common‑law agency/master‑servant factors to determine employee status under Title VII)
- Scott v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, [citation="523 F. App'x 911"] (3d Cir. 2013) (applies Darden to temporary‑worker discrimination claim; client not employer)
- Shah v. Bank of America, [citation="346 F. App'x 831"] (3d Cir. 2009) (same)
- Prather v. Prudential Fox & Roach, [citation="326 F. App'x 670"] (3d Cir. 2009) (same)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2009) (Title VII and PHRA employee status analyzed coextensively)