Robert A. Mariotti, Sr. v. Mariotti Bldg Products
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8610
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Mariotti Building Products, Inc. (MBP) is a closely held family business seeking growth from a small lumber yard to a multi-million-dollar enterprise.
- Plaintiff Robert A. Mariotti, Sr. served as MBP vice-president, secretary, board member, and shareholder under a July 2007 agreement; he contends he was not an at-will employee.
- Plaintiff alleged a pattern of religious harassment beginning in 1995, intensifying in 2005, involving MBP officers, directors, and employees.
- After Babe Mariotti’s death in late 2008/early 2009, shareholders terminated Plaintiff’s employment on January 10, 2009, with a notice outlining loss of benefits.
- Plaintiff remained a MBP director until August 6, 2009, then filed a Title VII religious-discrimination and hostile-work-environment suit; MBP moved to dismiss.
- District Court dismissed, concluding Plaintiff was not an employee under Title VII; Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Clackamas apply to Title VII actions? | Clackamas should not control Title VII analysis. | Clackamas applies because ADA/Title VII share employee definitions and EEOC guidance. | Clackamas test applies to Title VII. |
| Did Plaintiff’s shareholder-director/officer status render him an employee under Title VII? | Plaintiff had substantial authority and is an employee. | Authority alone and title do not determine employee status; control incidents matter. | Plaintiff not an employee under Clackamas factors. |
| Is exclusive control necessary to be an employee under Clackamas? | Exclusive control is essential to employee status. | Exclusive control is not a prerequisite; other factors apply. | Exclusive control not required; still not an employee here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (establishes six-factor framework for shareholder-director employee status under EEOC guidance)
- De Jesus v. LTT Card Servs., Inc., 474 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2007) (applies Clackamas to non-professional entities)
- Castaways Family Diner v. Smith, 453 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (applies Clackamas factors to proprietors; discusses source of authority)
- Solon v. Kaplan, 398 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2005) (supports broader application of Clackamas-like analysis)
- Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (illustrates fact-intensive nature of Clackamas inquiry)