Felder v. United States Tennis Association Incorporated
1:17-cv-05045
S.D.N.Y.Mar 7, 2022Background
- Sean Felder, a Black security guard, worked for CSC (2002–2009), sued CSC for discrimination in 2012 and settled in 2015.
- In August 2016 Felder was employed by AJ Squared Security (a subcontractor) and assigned to work at the U.S. Open; USTA refused to issue him credentials on Aug. 29, 2016.
- Felder alleges the USTA denied credentials because of race and in retaliation for his earlier suit against CSC.
- District Court dismissed Felder’s Title VII and § 1981 claims for failure to plausibly allege an employer-employee relationship (joint-employer theory) and lack of race-based interference; dismissal of discrimination claims was with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Title VII discrimination and § 1981 claims, but vacated and remanded the Title VII retaliation claim for leave to amend because Felder plausibly alleged retaliation and (with counsel) proffered a basis to plead additional joint-employer facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USTA was Felder’s joint employer for Title VII purposes | Felder: USTA exercised control (credentialing) and thus was a joint employer | USTA: was not an employer; credentialing is not sufficient control to create joint-employer status | Court: Joint-employer status requires plausible allegations that USTA would have exercised significant control (hiring, firing, training, pay, supervision); credentials alone insufficient — dismissal of discrimination claims affirmed |
| Whether Title VII discrimination claim was adequately pleaded | Felder: USTA denied credentials because of race | USTA: no employment relationship; no race-based facts pleaded | Held: Felder failed to plead race-based denial plausibly; discrimination claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Title VII retaliation claim was adequately pleaded | Felder: USTA denied credentials in retaliation for his prior lawsuit against CSC | USTA: same as above—no employer relationship; denial not actionable | Held: Allegations plausibly support retaliation motive; because Felder can plausibly add joint-employer facts with counsel, court vacated dismissal and remanded to permit amendment of retaliation claim |
| Whether § 1981 interference claim was adequately pleaded | Felder: USTA intentionally interfered with his employment contract because of race | USTA: no race-motivated interference pleaded; no employer status | Held: Felder did not plead facts showing race was the but-for cause of interference; § 1981 claim affirmed dismissed |
| Whether leave to amend should be permitted on appeal | Felder (now with counsel): can add additional factual detail and contract language to show USTA control | USTA: dismissal with prejudice was proper because prior amendments failed | Held: Court declined to allow repleading of discrimination and § 1981 claims (no indication they could be cured) but allowed amendment of Title VII retaliation claim based on proffered additional facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (applying common-law agency to determine employee status)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (use of common-law agency factors for statutory definitions of employer/employee)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Title VII retaliation standard)
- Gulino v. N.Y.S. Educ. Dep’t, 460 F.3d 361 (Title VII requires employer-employee relationship)
- Arculeo v. On‑Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (recognition of joint-employer doctrine in Title VII context)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61 (joint/employer tests in FLSA context referenced for control analysis)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (common-law agency factors applied to statutory employee definitions)