Hill-Keyes v. Commissioner of United States Social Security Administration
658 F. App'x 86
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Hill-Keyes alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act after termination by SSA and alleged harassment; she claimed a perceived disability and retaliation for reporting discrimination.
- SSA moved for summary judgment arguing Hill-Keyes was an independent contractor, not an SSA employee.
- District Court denied reconsideration but later granted summary judgment after limited discovery focused on employment status.
- Hill-Keyes argued she was either SSA employee or, as independent contractor, could bring §504 Rehabilitation Act claims; SSA argued not exhausted and disputed viability.
- Court applied the Darden framework to determine employee vs contractor status, considering the BPA contract, invoicing/payments to Strategic HR, 1099 vs W-2 tax treatment, work supervision, and control over case reviews.
- Ruling: Hill-Keyes was an independent contractor; no Title VII or §501 employment relationship, so summary judgment for SSA was proper; §504 claim rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hill-Keyes an SSA employee under Darden? | Hill-Keyes was SSA employee. | Hill-Keyes was independent contractor. | No; contractor status found. |
| Do the BPA and related facts establish independent contractor status? | Evidence shows SSA control. | Contractual structure indicates contractor. | Contract evidence supports contractor status. |
| May Hill-Keyes invoke §504 as an independent contractor without exhaustion? | §504 viable if independent contractor. | No exhaustion; cases insufficient. | Court would reject §504 claim; not exhausted/unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., 808 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2015) (Darden factors guide employee status determination)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003) (non-exhaustive factors in common-law agency test)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2009) (contract strengthens independent-contractor status evidence)
- Hilton Int'l Co. v. NLRB, 690 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1982) (duration of employment alone not determinative)
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 910 F. Supp. 225 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (invoices on company letterhead suggest outsider status)
- Holtzman v. World Book Co., 174 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (contract-based evidence of employment status)
- Covington v. Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2013) (employment relationship required for Title VII/§501)