Stock v. NV Energy, Inc., 3:12-cv-00389

Plaintiff Matthew Frank Stock sued NV Energy, Inc., alleging ADA disability (including perceived disability), failure to engage in the interactive process, and Title VII race discrimination based on his employment since 1984.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed against NV Energy, Inc.; NV Energy moved for summary judgment arguing it is a separate holding company and not the plaintiff’s employer.
NV Energy submitted declarations (including from SPPC counsel Karyn Taylor and plaintiff’s supervisor Bill McGee) establishing that plaintiff is employed by Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC), which operates under the trade name "NV Energy," and that SPPC—not NV Energy, Inc.—employed the relevant decisionmakers.
Plaintiff did not present admissible evidence showing he was employed by NV Energy, Inc. or that NV Energy and SPPC were joint employers; he relied on the trade name/use of "NV Energy" and argued the timing of the defense was improper.
The court applied the summary judgment standard, found defendant’s evidence undisputed on the employer-identity issue, concluded plaintiff failed to show joint-employer control, and granted summary judgment for NV Energy, entering judgment for defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NV Energy, Inc. was plaintiff's employer for ADA/Title VII liability	Plaintiff asserted he believed NV Energy was his employer and the trade name was used interchangeably	NV Energy argued it is a separate holding company and plaintiff is employed by SPPC (a distinct entity)	Court held plaintiff was employed by SPPC, not NV Energy, and NV Energy is not the employer
Whether NV Energy and SPPC were joint employers	Plaintiff contended NV Energy controlled terms/conditions of employment and thus is jointly liable	NV Energy produced declarations showing SPPC supervisors and decisionmakers, denying NV Energy day-to-day employment control	Court held plaintiff failed to present evidence of comprehensive day-to-day control; no joint-employer relationship shown
Whether summary judgment was improper given timing of NV Energy's assertion	Plaintiff argued raising the employer-identity defense late was unfair and not a basis for SJ	NV Energy pointed to its answer and communications informing plaintiff that SPPC is the proper employer	Court found defendant raised the issue in its answer and provided evidence; plaintiff had opportunity to discover but did not, so timing did not preclude SJ

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting rule)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and "scintilla" standards at summary judgment)
Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901 (employer-employee relationship required for ADA liability)
E.E.O.C. v. P.C. Mar. Ass'n, 351 F.3d 1270 (Title VII liability requires connection to employment relationship)
Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (joint-employer requires comprehensive, immediate day-to-day control)
Wynn v. NBC, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (joint employer discussion cited by plaintiff)
Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468 (purpose of summary judgment)
Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439 (when summary judgment inappropriate)
Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404 (nonmoving party must produce specific evidence to oppose SJ)
Bank of Am. v. Orr, 285 F.3d 764 (mere metaphysical doubt insufficient at SJ)