Jeff Peppers v. Cobb County, Georgia
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15691
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jeff Peppers, a male former criminal investigator for the Cobb Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, sued Cobb County under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act after learning a less-experienced female investigator earned substantially more.
- Peppers was supervised, hired, promoted, and had duties established solely by the District Attorney; Cobb County paid his salary and benefits, processed payroll, and approved the District Attorney’s annual budget.
- Georgia law treats the District Attorney’s Office as a separate state office; the District Attorney has authority to hire, set duties, and fix compensation (subject to county budget approval).
- The County’s HR director acknowledged investigators appeared on the County payroll and were reported to agencies as County employees, but testified the County’s role was limited to paymaster and benefits administration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Cobb County, concluding the County was not Peppers’s employer under federal anti-discrimination statutes; Peppers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction (EEOC naming) | Peppers argued suing County was permitted though County was not named in EEOC charge because County had notice and could participate. | County argued lack of EEOC naming precluded federal jurisdiction. | Court: Jurisdiction exists because County received notice, had opportunity to participate, and was not prejudiced. |
| Employer status under Title VII | Peppers argued County was his employer or joint employer because it funded pay, issued paychecks, and approved budgets/salaries. | County argued District Attorney controlled hiring, supervision, duties, and salary-setting; County only acted as paymaster. | Court: County was not Peppers’s employer; control over fundamental employment aspects rested with the District Attorney. |
| Joint-employer aggregation | Peppers argued County and District Attorney jointly employed him at least for compensation decisions. | County said any authority to approve budgets was not co-determination of terms and conditions; County lacked hiring/firing/supervision power. | Court: Rejected joint-employer theory—County’s paymaster role alone insufficient; joint-employer inquiry looks to total employment control. |
| Effect of HR testimony calling him a County employee | Peppers relied on HR admissions that he was on County payroll to show County was employer. | County said HR testimony reflected administrative payroll classification, not substantive employer control. | Court: HR statements were not dispositive; viewed in context they showed payroll administration only and did not create a material dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits Lab., Inc., 163 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1998) (Title VII "employee" status analyzed by master–servant common-law agency principles)
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2003) (statutory employee definition reflects conventional master–servant relationship)
- Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, 166 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1999) (presumption of separateness for state-created entities; standards for aggregating governmental units)
- Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assocs., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1994) (joint-employer test focuses on one entity retaining sufficient control over another’s employees)
- Welch v. Laney, 57 F.3d 1004 (11th Cir. 1995) (factors for analyzing employer status include control, hiring/firing authority, and workplace location)