Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc.
2000 WL 1915771, 237 F.3d 111 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining whether a worker is an employee under Title VII, the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the work is accomplished is the most important factor, outweighing the worker's tax treatment or the provision of benefits.
Facts:
- In July 1998, Julianne Eisenberg was offered a 'permanent full-time' position with Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc. after acquaintances from the company noted she was strong and had done carpentry work.
- Eisenberg began working at Advance loading and unloading furniture, was paid on an hourly basis, and was required to use a time clock.
- At the warehouse and at job sites, Advance managers like Peter White and Mike Ewing gave Eisenberg and her crew specific orders, directing them on where to go and what objects to move.
- Eisenberg alleges that during her employment she was sexually harassed by co-workers.
- On September 16, 1998, Eisenberg complained to Joan Isaacson, the office manager, about the sexual harassment and alleged drug use by other employees.
- The following day, Advance closed the warehouse.
- Isaacson told Eisenberg she would be rehired when the warehouse reopened but warned her that if she sought legal counsel over the harassment, she would not get her job back.
- Eisenberg was never contacted to return to work at Advance.
Procedural Posture:
- Julianne Eisenberg filed a complaint against Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Title VII and the NYHRL.
- After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Eisenberg was an independent contractor and not an 'employee' entitled to protection under the statutes.
- Eisenberg, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a worker qualify as an 'employee' protected by Title VII and the NYHRL when the hiring party exercises pervasive control over the manner and means of the work, even if the worker is treated as an independent contractor for tax and benefits purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Cabranes, J.
Yes, a worker is considered an employee under Title VII and the NYHRL when the hiring party controls the manner and means of the work. This 'control' factor is the most critical element of the common law agency test and should not be outweighed by factors like tax treatment or lack of benefits, especially in the context of non-waivable anti-discrimination rights. The court applied the thirteen-factor test from Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid but distinguished its application from copyright cases like Aymes v. Bonelli. Unlike intellectual property rights, which can be defined by contract, Title VII protections are 'public law rights' that cannot be waived. Allowing tax and benefit status to be dispositive would create a loophole for employers to misclassify workers and 'opt out' of anti-discrimination laws. Applying the Reid factors, the court found that Advance's pervasive control over Eisenberg's tasks, the unskilled nature of the work, Advance's provision of tools and work location, her hourly pay, and the fact that her work was central to Advance's business all strongly indicated an employer-employee relationship. These factors decisively outweighed the fact that Advance treated her as an independent contractor for tax purposes and did not provide benefits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the primacy of the 'control' test for determining employee status under Title VII within the Second Circuit. It curtails the ability of employers to misclassify workers as independent contractors through contractual arrangements concerning tax and benefit status. By emphasizing that anti-discrimination rights cannot be contracted away, the ruling provides stronger protections for workers in non-traditional employment relationships, which would later become highly relevant in gig economy litigation. The case establishes a clear hierarchy for analyzing the Reid factors in discrimination cases, setting a precedent that the day-to-day reality of the working relationship is more significant than the formal labels or financial arrangements between the parties.
