Skip to main content

Can Temporary Employees Make an Employer Subject to the ADEA? You Might Be Surprised


Rodriguez v. Dynamesh, Inc. - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division


Facts:  Martha Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") was hired by a screen printing supply business, Dynamesh, in 2006.  During 2013 and 2014, Dynamesh had 15 - 16 regular employees and had a staffing agency supply 8 temporary workers as well.  She alleged that in 2014, Dynamesh treated her differently than non-Hispanic, younger co-workers in regard to promotions, terms and conditions of employment, and discipline.  Shortly thereafter, Dynamesh terminated Rodriguez.  

Rodriguez subsequently brought suit against Dynamesh and alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA").  Dynamesh moved for summary judgment on Rodriguez's claim on the grounds that it was not an "employer" under the ADEA as it had less than 20 employees during 2013 and 2014; therefore Rodriguez could not bring a valid ADEA claim.

Holding:  The District Court denied Dynamesh's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Dynamesh could be considered an "employer" under the ADEA and therefore Rodriguez's ADEA claim could proceed.  The Court noted that while the ADEA only applies to "employers" who employ 20 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks, including the temporary workers at Dynamesh could satisfy the minimum threshold under the ADEA. 

In this instance, the Court looked at the employment relationship between Dynamesh and the temporary employees and held that the traditional principles of agency law apply.  Of note, the Court utilized a five factor test to determine whether the temporary workers qualified as employees:

  1. The extent of the employer's control and supervision over the worker, including directions on scheduling and performance of work;
  2. The kind of occupation and nature of skill required, including whether skills are obtained in the workplace;
  3. Responsibility for the costs of operation, such as equipment, supplies, fees, licenses, workplace, and maintenance of operations;
  4. Method and form of payment and benefits; and
  5. Length of job commitment and/or expectations.

The Court subsequently established that these temporary workers could be considered employees because Dynamesh controlled the temporary workers' schedules, work tasks, supervision, and work location.  As for Dynamesh's argument that labeling the temporary workers as employees would improperly create joint employer liability, the Court pointed to other courts that had previously held that a joint employer liability theory is cognizable under the ADEA.

Judgment:  The District Court denied Dynamesh's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the temporary employees that worked at Dynamesh could be counted towards the 20 employee threshold required to designate Dynamesh as an "employer" under the ADEA. 

The Takeaway:  Employers take note:  Just because you have temporary workers does not necessarily mean you can wash your hands of being liable under laws such as the ADEA.  As the Court pointed out, having 15 actual employees then staffing the rest of the company with temporary workers from a staffing agency does not allow an employer to avoid liability under the ADEA.  It is important to remember that courts will often look at whether a temporary worker is actually an employee (by way of a five factor test, as the Court did in this case).  Tread carefully the next time you think you can avoid liability under laws such as the ADEA because you staff some of your work force with temporary workers.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Gettleman

Date:  February 24, 2015

Opinionhr.cch.com/ELD/RodriguezDynamesh.pdf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

What I've Been Reading This Week

Recently, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, had her re-nomination on the brink, after Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee took steps to block it .  Readers might have heard that late last week, Commissioner Feldblum's re-nomination quietly slipped away and she tweeted out a thank you to supporters and friends, acknowledging that her time at the EEOC was over.  While there has not been much in the way of a further update in regard to that ongoing saga, we wait to see how things will play out at the EEOC, now that it has lost a quorum until additional Commissioners are confirmed by the Senate. For the time being, there are other developments for readers to review this week.  In particular, I call attention to the article on managing a wage & hour audit by the Department of Labor as well as steps an employer can take to better ensure compliance with the ADA. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. ...

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...