Matthew Faush v. Tuesday Morning
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19977
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Faush, an African-American worker, was hired and paid by staffing firm Labor Ready and assigned to work at a new Tuesday Morning store for ~10 days performing unskilled tasks (stocking, shelving, unloading).
- A written Agreement between Labor Ready and Tuesday Morning required Tuesday Morning to supervise temporary workers, provide site training/equipment, approve daily timecards, and pay Labor Ready an hourly charge for each temp’s hours.
- Store manager Keith Davis directly assigned work, trained and supervised the temps; Labor Ready supervisors made only two visits and relayed Davis’s instructions.
- Faush alleges racial slurs and discriminatory treatment at the store and that he was terminated; he sued Tuesday Morning under Title VII, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Tuesday Morning, finding no employment relationship; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tuesday Morning was Faush’s employer for Title VII/PHRA purposes | Faush: Darden common‑law factors show Tuesday Morning exercised sufficient control (daily supervision, assignments, time approval) to be an employer or joint employer | Tuesday Morning: Labor Ready hired, paid, taxed, insured, and could terminate—so Tuesday Morning was not the employer | Court: Vacated summary judgment; a reasonable jury could find an employment relationship under Darden; remanded |
| Which multi‑factor test governs (Darden v. Enterprise) | Faush favored Enterprise/joint‑employer (FLSA‑style) factors | Tuesday Morning urged Darden (common‑law agency) | Court: Darden (common‑law agency) governs Title VII; Enterprise applies to FLSA only |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on the employment issue | Faush: Facts create genuine dispute on Darden factors (control over day‑to‑day, method of payment, integration into business) | Tuesday Morning: Multiple factors (payroll, hiring/firing power, insurance) weigh against employer status; summary judgment appropriate | Court: Summary judgment improper—evidence (control of daily work, timecard approval, integration) could lead a jury to find joint employer |
| Viability of § 1981 claim against Tuesday Morning | Faush: § 1981 parallels Title VII; discrimination impaired contractual relations | Tuesday Morning: No contract or attempted contract with Tuesday Morning; § 1981 requires rights under an existing/proposed contract | Court: Affirmed dismissal of § 1981 claim—Faush did not show he had or attempted to make/enforce a contract with Tuesday Morning |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (governs common‑law agency test for “employee” in Title VII context)
- Community for Creative Non‑Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (common‑law agency factors referenced in Darden)
- Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., Inc., 519 U.S. 202 (applies common‑law test to Title VII employee definition)
- Covington v. Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. use of control/pay/hiring factors in Title VII employment analysis)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (PHRA claims interpreted coextensively with Title VII; consideration of contractual labels)
- Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344 (3d Cir. jury‑verdict affirmed where control by host employer mattered)
- Linstead v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 276 U.S. 28 (Supreme Court: crew paid by one company but supervised by another can be servants of host for particular job)
- Maynard v. Kenova Chem. Co., 626 F.2d 359 (temporary worker held common‑law employee of host employer)
- Butler v. Drive Automotive Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (Fourth Circuit: joint employer analysis for temps; similar multi‑factor approach)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (§ 1981 requires rights under existing or proposed contract to state a claim)