Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire District No. 5
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10934
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Juino volunteered as a firefighter with Livingston Parish Fire District No. 5 (District 5) from November 2009 to April 2010.
- Juino alleged Sullivan subjected her to sexual harassment; she reported it but claims no disciplinary action was taken.
- Juino terminated her volunteer service on April 2, 2010.
- District 5 moved for partial summary judgment arguing it was not an 'employer' under Title VII due to too few paid employees, and that Juino’s volunteer status foreclosed Title VII and state-law claims.
- District court treated the motion as a 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and adopted a threshold-remuneration approach to evaluate employment status.
- The district court concluded Juino was not an employee under Title VII using threshold-remuneration and economic-realities/common-law control tests; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juino is an employee under Title VII as a volunteer. | Juino argues the roster and benefits show an employment relationship. | District 5 contends volunteers are not employees under Title VII and that remuneration is lacking. | Juino is not an employee for Title VII purposes. |
| Whether the threshold-remuneration test governs volunteer status for Title VII coverage. | Remuneration or substantial benefits should establish coverage. | Remuneration is required to create a plausible employment relationship; otherwise not. | We adopt threshold-remuneration test; there was no threshold remuneration here. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the threshold-remuneration approach to this volunteer context. | Threshold remuneration should be found given benefits Juino received. | Benefits were incidental to volunteering and not substantial remuneration. | Court correctly applied threshold-remuneration approach and found no remuneration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graves v. Women’s Professional Rodeo Ass'n, 907 F.2d 71 (8th Cir. 1990) (threshold-remuneration precedes common-law analysis; no remuneration, no plausible employment.)
- O’Connor v. Rockland County, 126 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1997) (volunteers require a 'hire' and no remuneration疑; use common-law only if hire occurred.)
- Darden v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (common-law agency test factors; no one factor decisive.)
- Reid v. C.I.R. (Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid), 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (employment inquiry based on master-servant relationship and control.)
- Pietras v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs of Farmingville Fire Dist., 180 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1999) (indirect benefits can support employment where remuneration is significant.)
- Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211 (4th Cir. 1993) (indirect but significant benefits may establish employment in volunteer context.)
- Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc., 656 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2011) (remuneration nondispositive; weigh all relationship factors.)
- Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (remuneration nondispositive in director/employee analysis under ADA/ADEA.)