Walter Love v. JP Cullen & Sons, Incorporated
779 F.3d 697
7th Cir.2015Background
- Love (African-American) worked for Union Contracting, Inc. (UCI) as foreman on Cullen’s city hall project; UCI hired Love and paid his salary, with Cullen not directly employing him.
- EMI (Eugene Matthews, Inc.) was a Cullen subcontractor that could select its own subcontractors, including UCI, under Cullen’s contract.
- Cullen retained final authority to remove any worker from the site for safety or productivity concerns, though it did not hire Love directly or control his hours.
- Love was terminated from the site in February 2008 after a dispute with another worker; UCI supervisor initially objected to Love’s removal, but Cullen ordered it.
- Love claimed Title VII discrimination and that Cullen was his indirect/employer; Cullen moved for summary judgment asserting lack of such employer-employee relationship.
- District court granted summary judgment, concluding Cullen had insufficient control to be deemed an indirect employer; Love appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cullen is Love’s indirect employer under Title VII | Love argues Cullen’s control supports de facto employment | Cullen asserts insufficient control to make it an indirect employer | No; Cullen lacked sufficient control to be an indirect employer |
| Applicability of Knight five-factor test vs. economic realities | Love relies on control factors to show employer status | Cullen contends factors and economic realities show no employer status | Knight factors, as applied, fail to show sufficient control by Cullen |
| Whether Cullen directed the discriminatory act of firing Love | Love contends Cullen directed his dismissal on the basis of race | Cullen’s involvement in dismissal is not enough to create employer status absent control | Directed act alone does not establish indirect employer status under Title VII |
| Standard of review for summary judgment in Title VII indirect-employer context | Love contends factual disputes exist regarding control | Cullen argues no material facts show substantial control | Grant of summary judgment appropriate; no material facts support indeirect-employer status |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir. 1991) (control as key factor in employer-employee relation; five-factor test as economic realities framework)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (directed discriminatory act insufficient alone to establish de facto employer status)
- EEOC v. Illinois, 69 F.3d 167 (7th Cir. 1995) (economic realities and control considerations inform employer status under Title VII)
- Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249 (7th Cir. 2008) (multiple factors may indicate employer status even if some factors weigh against it)
- Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc., 246 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 2001) (economic realities and control considerations apply to Title VII employer analysis)
- Alexander v. Rush North Shore Medical Center, 101 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 1996) (control and direction over work as indicator of employment status)