Felder v. USTA
27 F.4th 834
2d Cir.2022Background
- USTA contracts with security firms (e.g., CSC and AJ Squared) to staff the U.S. Open; AJ Security assigned Sean Felder to work the 2016 event.
- When Felder went to pick up credentials on Aug. 29, 2016 the USTA refused to issue them; without credentials he could not work the event.
- Felder had previously sued CSC in 2012 for racial discrimination and settled in 2015; he alleges the USTA denied credentials in retaliation for that prior suit.
- Felder sued USTA under Title VII (race discrimination and retaliation) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (interference with contract); the district court dismissed for failure to plead an employer-employee relationship and lack of race-based interference.
- On appeal the Second Circuit held Felder failed to plausibly allege that USTA was his joint employer or that USTA denied credentials because of race, but found his retaliation allegation plausibly pleaded and remanded to allow amendment as to that claim.
- Felder was pro se in district court; he obtained counsel on appeal and represented he could plead additional joint-employer indicia if given leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of employer-employee relationship (joint employer) | USTA effectively controlled who worked at the Open (via credentialing) and thus was Felder’s joint employer | USTA lacked significant control over hiring, training, pay, supervision; AJ Security was the formal employer | Plaintiff did not plausibly plead joint-employer status; must allege common-law agency indicia of control |
| Title VII discrimination (race) | USTA denied credentials because of Felder’s race | USTA not employer; no facts showing race motivated denial | Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege race-based denial; affirmed |
| Title VII retaliation | USTA denied credentials in retaliation for Felder’s prior lawsuit against CSC | USTA denies retaliatory motive and relies on lack of employer status | Court vacated dismissal and remanded to permit amendment on retaliation because the alleged causal story is plausible and could be tied to joint-employer facts |
| § 1981 (interference with contract) | USTA intentionally interfered with Felder’s contract with AJ Security because of race | USTA lacked discriminatory intent; no facts linking denial to race | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead that but for race USTA would have interfered |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (adopt common-law agency factors to define employee)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (use agency factors to determine employee status)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003) (apply common-law agency to employment statutes)
- Gulino v. N.Y.S. Educ. Dep’t, 460 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of employer-employee relationship is primary element under Title VII)
- Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizes joint-employer doctrine under Title VII)
- Knitter v. Corvias Mil. Living, LLC, 758 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2014) (joint-employer requires entities to exercise significant control over same employee)
- Redd v. Summers, 232 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (client’s refusal to accept a subcontractor’s worker does not alone make it the worker’s employer)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)