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)

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 -