Pooneh Glascock v. Linn County Emergency Medicine
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22399
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Glascock, a female physician of Iranian origin, contracted with LCEM to provide ER services at Mercy Medical Center as an independent contractor.
- The contract featured a one-year term, renewal, a potential future ownership stake, and no benefits or vacation pay for Glascock.
- Glascock had scheduling input, LCEM set shifts based on availability, and Glascock could trade shifts and work elsewhere; she paid self-employment taxes and received no LCEM benefits.
- Glascock maintained significant professional autonomy: she selected patient charts, determined treatment plans, and performed duties largely without LCEM instructions, though quality reviews existed.
- Glascock alleged ongoing sexual harassment and national-origin insults by LCEM physicians; after probation, LCEM terminated her upon pregnancy disclosure.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding Glascock could not pursue Title VII or Iowa Civil Rights Act claims as an independent contractor; Glascock appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Glascock's Title VII/Iowa Act claims barred as an independent contractor claim? | Glascock was mischaracterized as independent contractor; alleged discriminatory treatment applicable to employees. | As an independent contractor, Glascock is not protected by Title VII or Iowa CRA. | Yes; independent contractor status precludes coverage under both statutes. |
| Do the Darden factors support employee or independent contractor status? | Several factors indicate an employee relationship due to control, duration, and benefits. | The balance of Darden factors favors independent contractor status. | The balance favors independent contractor status; district court not error. |
| Is control over the physician's work decisive in ER physician arrangements? | Control is present through scheduling and reviews; employment-like constraints imply employee status. | Control is inconclusive; ER doctors require hospital oversight regardless of status. | Control inconclusive; does not defeat independent contractor finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2000) (multiple factors may weigh for/against employment; some overlap with independent contractor status)
- Lerohl v. Friends of Minn. Sinfonia, 322 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2003) (Darden framework applied to worker classification)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court 1992) (control over manner and means; factors for employee vs. independent contractor)
- Wilde v. County of Kandiyohi, 15 F.3d 103 (8th Cir. 1994) (economic realities and terms of agreement in employee status)
- Wortham v. American Family Insurance Group, 385 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2004) (contractual labeling and economic realities inform status)
- Cilecek v. Inova Health System Services, 115 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1997) (ER context requires hospital-level control considerations)
- Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Neb. (duplicate citation note), 207 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2000) (reiterates factor analysis for contractor status)