72 | Developments in Equal Pay Litigation ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP the employee; (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) determined the rate and method of payment; and (4) maintained employment records.597 Deciding that issue can be quite complex and often gives rise to significant substantive litigation apart from the actual merits of a lawsuit. For example, in Moore v. Baker,598 the court allowed a complaint against alleged joint-employers to proceed, holding that the fact-intensive nature of the joint-employer inquiry required discovery and further factual development. In that case, a Director of Student Support Services at a community college sued her employer(s) for reassigning her to a new position as Adult Education Counselor/Student Services Coach.599 The court first noted that the term “employer” is defined differently under Title VII and the EPA.600 Plaintiff alleged that the college and the Board of Trustees should be treated as a single employer because the Board of Trustees has the authority to make rules and regulations for the college, including regarding qualifications for faculty and establishing and maintaining an annual salary schedule.601 Plaintiff also alleged that the college president was directly responsible to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees for the college’s day-to-day operations and serves at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees.602 The court held that those allegations would suffice at the motion to dismiss stage under both statutes, holding that joint-employment was a fact-specific inquiry best left to summary judgment.603 When plaintiffs sue under Title VII or state laws, different tests may be used. For example, in Noble v. Gould Medical Group, Inc.,604 a physician brought a range of discrimination claims under federal, state, and common law. The claims were brought against a group of distinct healthcare entities, which were corporate affiliates of each other, used the same corporate branding, and reported to a single CEO. The court first held that “[t]here is a presumption that separate corporate entities have distinct identities, and plaintiffs bear a heavy burden under both California and federal law when they seek to rebut this presumption and hold multiple corporate entities liable as a single employer.”605 The Plaintiff was relying on an integrated enterprise theory to establish joint liability, which looks to four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations between the two entities; (2) whether they share common management; (3) the degree to which centralized control of labor relations exists; and (4) whether there is common ownership or financial control.606 But the court noted that the plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant group hired him, set his compensation, or maintained his employment records. Nor did he allege that any entity other than his direct employer imposed any discipline on him. The court concluded: “’The key question in the integrated enterprise inquiry is who is responsible for the employment decisions at issue, and Plaintiff has 597 See, e.g., Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs., Ltd., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d. Cir. 1999). 598 Moore v. Baker, No. 18-cv-311-KD-B, 2019 WL 1374674 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 8, 2019). 599 Id. at *1. The community college subsequently hired a new director of student support services at a higher salary than plaintiff had been paid. Id. at *2. 600 Id. at *6. Under Title VII, an employer is “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year and any agent of such a person.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)). As noted above, the definition of “employer” under the FLSA/EPA is: “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” Id. at *7 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 203(d)). The court noted that term is defined more broadly under the FLSA/EPA than under the common law. Id. 601 Moore, 2019 WL 1374674, at *6. 602 Id. 603 Id. at *7. Similarly, in Jafri v. Signal Funding LLC, No. 19-cv-645, 2019 WL 4824883 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2019), the Chief Operating Officer of a financial company brought a claim under the federal and Illinois Equal Pay Acts, alleging she was paid less than five of her male subordinates. Id. at *1. The complaint was brought against plaintiff’s employer entity, as well as affiliated entities and the founder and Managing Partner of the corporate parent of those affiliated entities. Id. The employer argued that the complaint failed to allege that the affiliated entities had any control over plaintiff’s pay. Id. at *4. However, the district court held that, “the allegation that she was employed by these entities is sufficient to plausibly allege that the entities had some control over her pay. This is particularly so when one individual—defendant [founder]—owns all three entities and is alleged to have directed [plaintiff] to move from Illinois to Florida in order to be able to more effectively work for all three entities.” Id. The district court therefore allowed the case to proceed to discovery in order to determine, among other things, whether each of the defendants had the alleged control over plaintiff’s compensation. Id. 604 Noble v. Gould Med. Group, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01433-MCE-CKD, 2022 WL 3718036 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022). 605 Id. at *4 (quoting Rhodes v. Sutter Health, No. 2:12-cv-0013 WBS DAD, 2012 WL 1868697, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2012)). 606 Id. at *5.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4