holding that temporary employee was employee of both temporary agency and special employer for purposes of Title VII
Summary of this case from Mullis v. Mechanics Farmers BankNo. 84-7723.
June 11, 1985.
Appeal from S.D.N.Y., 575 F.Supp. 1513, 588 F.Supp. 125.
AFFIRMED.
holding that temporary employee was employee of both temporary agency and special employer for purposes of Title VII
Summary of this case from Mullis v. Mechanics Farmers Bankupholding a Title VII claim by an administrative assistant against a customer of a temporary personnel agency for discriminatorily ending her temporary work assignment and thereby interfering with her employment relationship with the personnel agency
Summary of this case from Raiser v. O'ShaughnessyFull title:EL CID LTD. v. NEW JERSEY ZINC CO
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Jun 11, 1985
" Restatement (Second) of Agency § 227. Title VII case law recognizes that under the loaned servant doctrine,…
Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.(citations and internal quotations omitted)); Mullis v. Mechanics Farmers Bank, 994 F. Supp. 680, 685…