935 F. Supp. 2d 1286
M.D. Ala.2013Background
- Plaintiff Kristal Kaiser, an African-American female, was hired by Trofholz Technologies in Nov 2010 to work as a database administrator at Maxwell Air Force Base under a one-year contract.
- Trofholz was a subcontractor for Booz Allen Hamilton, which together with Trofholz prepared a US Air Force database to track language capabilities.
- Plaintiff’s supervisors were Booz Allen employees, the only Booz Allen supervisors from whom Kaiser received direction, giving Booz Allen control over her work roles and responsibilities.
- Kaiser worked in an office with three men (two Caucasians, one of Indian descent); two in-office men were Booz Allen employees, one was Trofholz.
- A Booz Allen employee, Micah Cordes, subjected Kaiser to racist and sexist jokes, leading Kaiser to complain to Trofholz in Jan 2011 and Cordes being moved.
- After Cordes’ move, Booz Allen supervisor Ingenloff allegedly provided Trofholz with false performance information, resulting in a written warning and negative evaluation for Kaiser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Booz Allen is Kaiser's employer under Title VII | Booz Allen is a joint employer with Trofholz. | Booz Allen disputes joint-employer status and thus subject-matter jurisdiction. | Booz Allen's status as employer is nonjurisdictional; court retains jurisdiction and denies dismissal on this point. |
| Whether Kaiser states a plausible Title VII joint-employer claim against Booz Allen | Allegations show Booz Allen controlled terms/conditions of Kaiser’s employment. | Allegations are insufficient to establish Booz Allen as joint employer at this stage. | Plaintiff provided sufficient factual allegations to plausibly allege joint-employer liability; denial of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (employee-number requirement is a nonjurisdictional element of the claim)
- Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assocs., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 1994) (threshold issue of whether defendants are joint employers bears on jurisdiction)
- Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1998) (factors for determining joint employer status)
- Walker v. Boys and Girls Club of Am., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (employer definition under Title VII as threshold/merits consideration)
- Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 166 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1999) (threshold-jurisdictional treatment of whether a defendant meets employer definition)
- McLeod v. City of Newton, 931 F. Supp. 817 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (Eleventh Circuit liberal stance toward Title VII employer definitions)
- Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1999) (employer status as a threshold issue varies by case; context matters)
- Watson v. Adecco Employment Servs., Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (employer question as a threshold/merits consideration in Title VII)