Holloway v. Water Works & Sewer Board
24 F. Supp. 3d 1112
N.D. Ala.2014Background
- Water Works and Sewer Board of Vernon is a public corporation created under Alabama law with five elected directors.
- Board operates Vernon’s water and sewer systems and has independent payroll, finances, and building; Vernon does not pay Board salaries.
- Board can appoint employees and set salaries and schedules without Vernon’s approval; the General Manager reports to the Board.
- Holloway served as Board General Manager until termination on July 15, 2012 and was not terminated with Vernon input.
- Board had no more than twelve employees in the year preceding Holloway’s termination.
- Holloway alleges age discrimination under the ADEA; Board moves for summary judgment arguing it is not an employer under the ADEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vernon is a political subdivision of Alabama for ADEA purposes | Holloway contends Vernon is a state political subdivision. | Board argues Vernon is a political subdivision; thus relevant to agency status. | Yes; Vernon is a political subdivision of Alabama. |
| Whether the Board is an agency or instrumentality of Vernon | Holloway asserts Board is sufficiently autonomous to avoid agency status. | Board as public corporation created by Vernon functions as Vernon’s agency or instrumentality. | Board is an agency or instrumentality of Vernon. |
| Whether the twenty-employee threshold applies to public agencies under the ADEA | Holloway emphasizes the statutory twenty-employee requirement. | Board argues public agencies are exempt from the twenty-employee threshold when constituting an employer. | Twenty-employee threshold does not apply to public agencies; board qualifies as employer as an instrumentality. |
| Whether the Board qualifies as an employer under the ADEA | Holloway relies on Board’s status as instrumentality of Vernon to bring it within ADEA coverage. | Board claims it is not an employer because it is a non-state entity or lacks twenty employees. | The Board qualifies as an employer under the ADEA as an agency or instrumentality of Vernon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (state-law entity analysis for arm of the state)
- Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158 (11th Cir.1985) (arm of the state; analysis for agency/instrumentality)
- Knight v. State of Ga., 992 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.1993) (recognizes removal from employer definition pre-1974 amendments)
- Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 512 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.2008) (local governments and immunity in context of ADEA)
- Potence v. Hazleton Area School Dist., 357 F.3d 366 (3rd Cir.2004) (municipal liability under ADEA; explicit municipal liability language)
- Lerman v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 346 Fed.Appx. 500 (11th Cir.2009) (treats city as political subdivision for statutory purposes)
- Mor*rison v. City of Bainbridge, 432 Fed.Appx. 877 (11th Cir.2011) (ADEA merits against city treated without challenge to employer definition)
- Mitchell v. City of LaFayette, 504 Fed.Appx. 867 (11th Cir.2013) (ADEA merits against city; status as municipal employer implied)
- Calderon v. Martin Cnty., 639 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (employee status under public entity framework)
- CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.2001) (remedial statute construction; liberal interpretation)
- Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739 (11th Cir.1996) (summary judgment standard; evidence-based dispute evaluation)