§Why CasetextPricing

Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin, Appellants,v.Sirva, Inc. and Allied Van Lines, Inc., Respondents.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab., Inc.

    163 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1998)   Cited 355 times
    Holding that an individual who received no compensation as an officer-director could not be considered an "employee" under Title VII

  2. Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC

    425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 269 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no integrated employment for the purposes of Title VII

  3. Gulino v. N.Y. State Educ. Dept

    460 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 242 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employers can use employment tests having disparate impact, provided that tests are “ ‘demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance’ ” (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. at 426, 95 S.Ct. 2362)

  4. Patrowich v. Chemical Bank

    63 N.Y.2d 541 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 377 times
    Holding that an individual is not liable under the NYHRL as an employer unless he is 'shown to have any ownership interest or any power to do more than carry out personnel decisions made by others'

  5. Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc.

    808 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2015)   Cited 144 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding Defendant indirectly paid employees' wages where, "rather than paying Labor Ready a fixed rate for the completion of a discrete project, a method by which independent contractors are often compensated,... [Defendant] paid Labor Ready for each hour worked by each individual temporary employee at an agreed-upon hourly rate."

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 333 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  7. NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Rennels

    994 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1999)   Cited 169 times
    Holding "[b]ecause Title VII is remedial and humanitarian in nature, it should be liberally construed, resolving ambiguities in favor of the complainant."

  8. Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp.

    255 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 123 times
    Holding in FLSA context that “[a]n employer's characterization of an employee is not controlling, however, for otherwise there could be no enforcement of any minimum wage or overtime law”

  9. Lima v. Addeco

    634 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that the single employer and joint employer doctrines apply in Title VII cases

  10. Griffin v. Sirva Inc.

    835 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2016)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Addressing "joint employer" and "single employer" doctrines

  11. Section 651 - Definitions

    N.Y. Lab. Law § 651   Cited 143 times
    Defining “employee”