Appeals Court Defines
What started off as a discrimination case in Puerto Rico quickly spiraled into a linguistic debate over whether a shareholder or director is considered an employee under the law. On Jan. 19, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question for the first time. In December 2004 Lenda De...
February 28, 2007 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
What started off as a discrimination case in Puerto Rico quickly spiraled into a linguistic debate over whether a shareholder or director is considered an employee under the law.
On Jan. 19, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question for the first time.
In December 2004 Lenda De Jesus filed suit against her employer LTT Card Service Inc., which sells cell phone components. De Jesus accused her former employer of harassing her after she announced she was pregnant. When confronted with the suit, LTT countered by saying it was not an “employer” under federal anti-discrimination laws and therefore De Jesus' suit had no merit.
Title VII defines an “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce that has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” LTT claimed that during the time of De Jesus' complaint, it only had 13 employees.
However, during the discovery process, De Jesus determined that LTT excluded two men from the payroll. LTT argued those men were shareholders and directors and therefore should be considered proprietors, not employees. But the Appeals court found they were employees within the meaning of federal law.
What started off as a discrimination case in Puerto Rico quickly spiraled into a linguistic debate over whether a shareholder or director is considered an employee under the law.
On Jan. 19, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question for the first time.
In December 2004 Lenda De Jesus filed suit against her employer LTT Card Service Inc., which sells cell phone components. De Jesus accused her former employer of harassing her after she announced she was pregnant. When confronted with the suit, LTT countered by saying it was not an “employer” under federal anti-discrimination laws and therefore De Jesus' suit had no merit.
Title VII defines an “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce that has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” LTT claimed that during the time of De Jesus' complaint, it only had 13 employees.
However, during the discovery process, De Jesus determined that LTT excluded two men from the payroll. LTT argued those men were shareholders and directors and therefore should be considered proprietors, not employees. But the Appeals court found they were employees within the meaning of federal law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250