Jones v. A.W. Holdings LLC, 484 F. App'x 44

Jones, a Jamaican national with advanced psychology credentials, was hired by AWS as a behavioral clinician in 2007 under an independent contractor arrangement.
She received nonemployee compensation via IRS Form 1099, had no benefits, and could terminate the relationship with 30 days’ notice; AWS did not treat her as an employee.
Her work involved home visits, developing behavioral plans, and she sought access to standard AWS clinical forms and case referrals, which prompted tension with supervisor Titus.
After raising concerns about a supervisor’s alleged hostility toward her as a minority, AWS terminated her contract about two months after her complaints under a 30-day notice period.
Jones sued AWS under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting race discrimination and retaliation; AWS moved for summary judgment, arguing independent-contractor status and legitimate nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons for termination.
The district court granted summary judgment, ruling she was an independent contractor and that there was no direct or pretextual evidence of discrimination or retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones was an employee or independent contractor	Jones asserts AWS exercised control over her work and that the contractor arrangement should be treated as employment.	AWS argues contract terms and related conduct show independent-contractor status with no employer control over methods.	Jones was an independent contractor; Title VII claim barred.
Whether Jones's § 1981 discrimination claim survives under direct/indirect proof	Jones contends she faced race discrimination as the only Black clinician and points to delays in agreements and forms as evidence.	AWS argues no direct or prima facie indirect case; reasons for termination were nondiscriminatory and not pretextual.	No triable § 1981 discrimination issue; no pretext established.
Whether Jones's § 1981 retaliation claim survives	Jones argues termination followed closely after complaining about Dr. Salon as retaliatory.	AWS asserts a two-month gap is too long for retaliation absent other evidence; no additional proof of retaliation.	No retaliation claim; timing insufficient.

Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249 (7th Cir.2001) (employer's right to control is central to employee status determination)
Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir.1991) (control and economic realities determine contractor vs. employee)
Ost v. W. Suburban Travelers Limousine, Inc., 88 F.3d 435 (7th Cir.1996) (flexibility and independence support contractor status)
Taylor v. ADS, Inc., 327 F.3d 579 (7th Cir.2003) (contractual terms strongly suggest independent contractor)
Hayden v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 9 F.3d 617 (7th Cir.1993) (employee status despite certain training relationships)
Zaccagnini v. Charles Levy Circulating Co., 338 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2003) (late affidavits do not automatically create credibility issues)
Turner v. The Salo on, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2010) (retaliation timing standards in the Seventh Circuit)
Rodgers v. White, 657 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.2011) (indirect evidence framework for discrimination claims)
Harris v. Warrick Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 666 F.3d 444 (7th Cir.2012) (prima facie discrimination and pretext considerations)
Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.2008) (pretext analysis in discrimination claims)
Montgomery v. American Airlines, 626 F.3d 382 (7th Cir.2010) (retaliation analysis and timing considerations)
Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2010) (indirect-method discrimination standards)
Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.1992) (contractual status factors in employment relationships)