Garcia v. PSI Environmental Systems, et al

Filing 124

MEMORANDUM Clarifying ruling on pla's motion in limine #3. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (dks)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO JUAN GARCIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-00055-EJL Plaintiff, v. PSI ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, a California Corporation, and WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC., a California Corporation, MEMORANDUM CLARIFYING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 Defendants. INTRODUCTION The Court issues this memorandum to clarify its earlier order on plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3. See Dkt. 79, at 7-9. In that motion, plaintiff sought to introduce evidence relevant to the “single-employer” test. The Court concludes that the jointemployer test is applicable to determine liability of the two defendants in this case. DISCUSSION There are two defendants in this case: Waste Connections, Inc. (WCI) and PSI Environmental Systems. WCI is PSI’s parent corporation. Defendants argue that WCI is not liable as an “employer” because it did not control the terms and conditions of Garcia’s MEMORANDUM - employment. Garcia disputes this contention, but, even more basically, the parties dispute the legal test applicable to determine whether WCI is Garcia’s employer. Garcia urges the Court to apply the single-employer test, while defendants contend that the jointemployer test applies. Defendants have the better argument. The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that the single-employer test does not determine joint liability in the Title VII context. See Anderson v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 336 F.3d 924, 928 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The test does not determine joint liability as the parties suggest, but instead determines whether a defendant can meet the statutory criteria of an “employer” for Title VII applicability.”). Rather, the single-employer test becomes relevant only when there is a question as to whether a defendant can meet the statutory criteria of an “employer” for Title VII applicability. Id. That is not an issue here, as PSI admits it has more than 15 employees. Thus, the singleemployer test is inapplicable. The appropriate test for determining whether Garcia is also an employee of WCI is the joint-employer test, or the “economic realities” test. See Murray v. Principal Fin. Group, Inc., 613 F.3d 943, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., 2012 WL 1344729 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012). The following factors, among others, may be relevant here: (1) whether WCI had the power to hire and fire employees; (2) whether WCI supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) whether WCI determined the rate and method of payment; (4) whether WCI maintained employment records; (5) whether WCI had the power to discipline MEMORANDUM - employees; and (6) whether WCI supervised employees’ worksites. See Buttars v. Creekside Home Health, Inc., 2008 WL 4411414, at *1-2 (D. Idaho Sept. 25, 2008). DATED: June 25, 2012 Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge MEMORANDUM -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?