Knitter v. Corvias Military Living, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13413

Lisa Knitter worked for Lewis General Contracting, Inc. (LGC) as a handyman from March–October 2010; LGC did almost all its business for Picerne (now Corvias) at Fort Riley.
Knitter performed turns on Picerne-managed housing, received assignments and task-specific instruction from Picerne neighborhood supervisors, and followed Picerne safety/dress rules, but LGC paid her, issued W-2s, and withheld taxes.
Picerne paid vendor companies (including LGC) a flat fee per turn; LGC retained a 15% administrative fee and paid its handymen.
Knitter complained to Picerne about sexual harassment and alleged gender-based pay disparities by a Picerne supervisor; after Picerne asked LGC not to send her to Fort Riley, LGC terminated her.
Knitter later applied (through "Lisa’s Handyman Service") for vendor/subcontractor status with Picerne and was denied; she sued Picerne under Title VII for wage discrimination, retaliatory termination, and retaliatory denial of vendor status.
The district court granted summary judgment for Picerne on grounds Picerne was not Knitter’s employer and the vendor application was not an application for employment; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Picerne was Knitter’s "employer" under Title VII (wage discrimination & retaliatory termination)	Knitter: Picerne exercised significant control (assignments, supervision, safety rules) and effectively caused her termination by asking LGC not to send her, so it is a joint employer.	Picerne: It was a client/vendor; LGC hired, paid, supervised employment records and had exclusive termination authority, so Picerne was not an employer.	Court: Applied the joint-employer test and held no reasonable jury could find Picerne a joint employer—LGC controlled termination, payroll, and personnel records; Picerne's supervision was limited to vendor-style directions and safety.
Whether Knitter’s vendor application was an "application for employment" for Title VII retaliation purposes	Knitter: Denial of vendor status was retaliatory because it followed her complaints.	Picerne: The submission sought subcontractor/vendor status, not employment; Title VII protects employees/applicants for employment.	Court: Held Knitter was not a Picerne employee; her application was for subcontractor/vendor status, not employment, so Title VII retaliation does not apply.

Tabor v. Hilti, 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and viewing facts for nonmoving party)
Bristol v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002) (articulating joint-employer and single-employer tests)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)