Lunts v. Rochester City School District, 515 F. App'x 11

Lunts alleged Title VII and EPA claims against RCSD, SUNY Empire State College, and SUNY.
District court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing all claims.
Court held Lunts not an employee of RCSD and RCSD not a joint employer of Lunts.
Lunts argued she faced retaliation for complaining about offensive student remarks; district court did not address because not raised in complaint.
Lunts failed to submit a proper Rule 56(d) affidavit; discovery requests were deemed insufficient.
Court affirmed district court’s judgment after independent review of record and case law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCSD was or could be a joint employer	Lunts argues RCSD employed her	RCSD not employer or joint employer	No; RCSD not an employer or joint employer
Whether retaliation claim was properly raised	Retaliation claim existed	Claim not raised in complaint	Claim not reached/raised; not considered on merits
Whether district court properly denied additional discovery	Needed more discovery to oppose summary judgment	Rule 56(d) affidavit required and not satisfied	Affirmed denial; no sufficient Rule 56(d) affidavit

United States v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (controls joint-employer analysis in employment cases)
NLRB v. Solid Waste Services, Inc., 38 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1994) (defines joint-employer factors if control over employees exists)
Clinton’s Ditch Coop. Co. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1985) (identifies common hiring, firing, pay, supervision as factors)
Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standard and de novo review jury threshold guidance)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (evidence standard for finding genuine issues of material fact)