Bristol v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Clear Creek

6 Citing briefs

  1. Lewis v. Powers et al

    BRIEF in Opposition to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 25, 2017

    Ms. Lewis does not have detailed information regarding the financial control of the Entities or whether there is centralized control of their labor relations. Although it has been said that centralized control of labor relations is the most important factor of the integrated enterprize test, Bristol, 312 F.3d at 1220, that factor is not as important outside the Test’s use to identify “joint employers.” The significant overlap in principals of the Entities, their sharing a common location, lack of separation of their workforces, and consistent holding out to the public that they are affiliates strongly bound to each other suffice to demonstrate that they are integrated for purposes of the case at bar.

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

    Brief

    Filed March 28, 2017

    , ABETTING, INCITING, COMPELLING, OR COERCING A VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE LAW § 296(15) ................ 28 A. “Aid” and “Abet” ............................................................. 29 B. “Incite, Compel or Coerce” ............................................. 35 CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 39 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................................. 22, 23 Argyle Realty Assocs. v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, 65 A.D.3d 273 (2d Dep’t 2009) ................................................... 15 Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................... 26 Brankov v. Hazzard, 142 A.D.3d 445 (1st Dep’t 2016) ................................................ 15 Bristol v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of County of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002) .................................................. 23 City of Schenectady v. State Div. of Human Rights, 37 N.Y.2d 421 (1975) ................................................................... 4 Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) .................................................................... 14 Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n v. Travelers Ins. Co., 759 P.2d 1358 (Colo. 1988) ........................................................ 31 DiMucci Constr. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 24 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 1994) ........................................................ 24 Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (2004) ....................................................... 33, 34, 38 Fox v. Commonwealth Worldwide Chauffeured Transp. of NY, LLC, 865 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ........................................ 38 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Cases Page(s) Frankel v. Bally, Inc., 987 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1993) .......................

  3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Columbine Management Services, Inc. et Al.

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed September 30, 2016

    In determining whether two or more nominally separate corporate entities may be considered a single employer under an integrated enterprise theory, the courts generally consider four factors: “‘(1) interrelations of operation; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership and financial control.’” Bristol v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 1213, 1220 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting EEOC v. Wooster Brush Co. Employees Relief Ass’n, 727 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 1984); Knowlton v. Teltrust Phones, Inc., 189 F.3d 1177, 1184 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding jury verdict of integrated enterprise when, inter alia, parent company wholly owned subsidiaries, shared common officers and directors, accounting department, and human resources manager, and used single personnel and employee handbooks).

  4. Solis et al v. Circle Group, LLC, The et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed September 20, 2016

    Bristol v. Bd. Of County Comm’Rs, 312 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10 th Cir., 2002) (“a plaintiff who is the employee of one entity may seek to hold another entity liable by claiming that the two entities are joint employers. This joint-employer test acknowledges that the two entities are separate, but looks to whether they co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment.”)

  5. Colorado Outfitters Association et al v. Hickenlooper

    MOTION for Leave to Motion To File Amicus Curiae Brief In Opposition To Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Sheriff's As Plaintiffs Acting in Their Official Capacity

    Filed August 22, 2013

    Tunget v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 992 P.2d 650, 652 (Colo. App. 2000); Bristol v. Bd. Of County Commissioners of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10 Cir. 2002).th 6.

  6. Isenbart v. Kit Carson County, Board of County Commissioners et al

    REPLY to Response to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed March 15, 2012

    Accordingly, it is clear that the BOCC cannot be held liable for Sheriff Ridnour’s decision to terminate her employment. Although Plaintiff correctly notes that Bristol v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 1213, 1219-20 (10 th Cir. 2002) is an ADA case, the Court’s rationale for finding that the BOCC was not the plaintiff’s employer is nonetheless persuasive and applicable to this case. The Bristol Court noted that the sheriff in the case before it was not setting official policy in firing the plaintiff “except to the extent that requiring employees to be able to perform their jobs can be called a ‘policy.