Matthew Faush v. Tuesday Morning
808 F.3d 208, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19977, 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,437 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A client of a temporary staffing agency can be considered a joint employer of a temporary worker under Title VII if the client exercises sufficient control over the manner and means of the worker's performance. The determination is made by applying the common-law agency test, where the right to control the worker's daily activities is a primary factor.
Facts:
- Matthew Faush, an African-American man, was an employee of Labor Ready, a temporary staffing firm.
- Labor Ready assigned Faush to work for ten days at a new Tuesday Morning, Inc. store that was preparing to open.
- At the store, Tuesday Morning's manager, Keith Davis, directly supervised Faush, assigned his daily tasks, provided training, and furnished necessary equipment.
- The work Faush performed, such as unloading merchandise and setting up shelves, was identical to the work assigned to Tuesday Morning's permanent employees.
- While at the store, Davis accused Faush and other African-American temporary employees of stealing.
- A white employee used a racial slur against Faush and his coworkers, and Davis refused to hear their complaint, citing loss prevention concerns.
- Following these incidents, Faush was informed he could no longer work at the Tuesday Morning store.
- The agreement between Labor Ready and Tuesday Morning stated that Tuesday Morning was responsible for supervising and directing the temporary employees' activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Faush sued Tuesday Morning, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the court of first instance).
- Faush alleged racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
- Tuesday Morning filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not Faush's employer and therefore could not be liable.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tuesday Morning.
- Faush (appellant) filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the intermediate appellate court).
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 client company that exercises significant daily supervisory control over a temporary worker from a staffing agency qualify as that worker's 'employer' under Title VII, and thus face potential liability for employment discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuentes, Circuit Judge
Yes. A client company that exercises significant daily supervisory control over a temporary worker can be considered a joint employer under Title VII. The court determined that the common-law agency test articulated in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden governs the inquiry. Although Labor Ready handled Faush's payroll, taxes, and formal hiring, a rational jury could find that Tuesday Morning was his employer because it exercised overwhelming control over his daily work activities. Tuesday Morning's managers assigned Faush's tasks, provided training and materials, supervised him directly, and determined the hours he worked. Furthermore, the work performed by Faush was part of the regular business of Tuesday Morning, and the agreement between the companies explicitly assigned supervisory responsibility to Tuesday Morning, which also pledged to comply with Title VII. These factors, particularly the extensive control over the manner and means of work, are sufficient for a jury to conclude that an employment relationship existed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that in the context of temporary staffing arrangements, the Darden common-law agency test is the appropriate standard for determining joint-employer status under Title VII. The court's emphasis on the 'right to control' daily work activities over formal payroll and hiring arrangements significantly expands potential liability for client companies. This precedent puts businesses on notice that they cannot insulate themselves from Title VII liability simply by using a staffing agency; if they manage the temporary worker's day-to-day performance, they assume the responsibilities of an employer. The ruling strengthens protections for the growing contingent workforce by ensuring they have a legal remedy against the company where they actually perform their labor.
