Stockett v. Tolin
59 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,568, 791 F. Supp. 1536, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6694 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nominally separate corporations that are highly integrated with respect to ownership, management, operations, and control of labor relations may be treated as a single, integrated enterprise or 'single employer' for the purpose of meeting the 15-employee jurisdictional threshold of Title VII.
Facts:
- Michelle Ann Stockett was hired for an internship program and subsequently became a full-time employee for a group of Florida-based film production companies.
- The companies, Limelite Studios, Limelite Video, and Directors Production Company (DPC), were all principally owned and dominated by Frank Tolin.
- Although legally separate, the companies operated as a single enterprise, sharing office space, management, payroll systems, insurance policies, and personnel, and were referred to by Tolin as 'departments' of one large company.
- From her first day until her last, Tolin subjected Stockett to constant and unwelcome sexual advances, including unwanted physical touching, crude verbal propositions, and physical confinement.
- Tolin's behavior was not limited to Stockett and created a pervasively hostile work environment, with numerous other female employees also being harassed.
- The harassment culminated when Tolin presented Stockett with an ultimatum: 'F— me or you’re fired.'
- Shortly after this threat and before Tolin returned from a business trip, Stockett resigned from her position.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Ann Stockett filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Dade County Fair Housing and Employment Opportunity Commission.
- After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, Stockett filed a lawsuit against Frank Tolin and three corporations he controlled in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (trial court).
- The suit alleged claims under Title VII for sexual harassment and constructive discharge, a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and several state-law tort claims.
- The parties agreed to a bench trial, meaning the case would be tried before a judge without a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do multiple, nominally separate corporations constitute a single 'employer' for the purposes of Title VII's jurisdictional requirements when they are highly integrated with respect to ownership and operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, District Judge
Yes, multiple corporations can be treated as a single 'employer' under Title VII if they constitute an integrated enterprise. The court applies the National Labor Relations Board's four-factor test to determine if the defendants function as a single employer: (1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control. The court found overwhelming evidence that the Tolin-controlled companies met all four factors, as they shared management, services, payroll, personnel policies, and were all financially controlled by Tolin. Therefore, the companies collectively met Title VII's 15-employee jurisdictional requirement. The court further found that Tolin's 'relentless' and 'blatant' conduct created a hostile work environment, and his final threat constituted quid pro quo sexual harassment, which compelled Stockett to resign, amounting to a constructive discharge.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear application of the 'integrated enterprise' or 'single employer' doctrine, which is crucial for holding small, interrelated companies accountable under Title VII. It prevents employers from circumventing federal anti-discrimination laws by structuring their business as multiple small entities to stay below the 15-employee threshold. The case also serves as a stark example of conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to establish both hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment claims. The court's willingness to consider evidence of harassment against other employees reinforces the principle that the overall work environment is relevant to an individual's claim.
