{"id":1043,"date":"2024-01-06T15:18:47","date_gmt":"2024-01-06T19:18:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1043"},"modified":"2024-01-06T15:18:47","modified_gmt":"2024-01-06T19:18:47","slug":"texas-federal-court-greenlights-eeoc-lawsuit-against-three-companies-as-parts-of-an-integrated-enterprise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/06\/texas-federal-court-greenlights-eeoc-lawsuit-against-three-companies-as-parts-of-an-integrated-enterprise\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Federal Court Greenlights EEOC Lawsuit Against Three Companies As Parts Of An Integrated Enterprise"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Emilee N. Crowther, and Christian J. Palacios<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i>: <\/b>In EEOC v. 1901 South Lamar, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-539, 2024 WL 41202, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2024), U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman adopted<\/a> U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower\u2019s recommendation to deny<\/a> Defendants\u2019 three Motions to Dismiss an EEOC pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. As Magistrate Judge Hightower\u2019s recommendation illustrates, even smaller entities that would ordinarily not satisfy Title VII\u2019s numerosity requirement cannot escape the EEOC\u2019s grasp if they collectively operate as a single, integrated enterprise.\u00a0 <\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Defendants 1901 South Lamar, LLC d\/b\/a Corner Bar (\u201cCorner Bar\u201d), Revelry Kitchen & Bar, LLC (\u201cRK&B\u201d), and Revelry on the Boulevard, LLC (\u201cROTB\u201d) (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d) hired Kellie Connolly (\u201cConnolly\u201d) in September 2020 to work at the Corner Bar in Austin, Texas.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at *1. On January 31, 2021, Connolly informed the Defendants she was pregnant.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Two months later, after Connolly became visibly pregnant, the Defendants allegedly reduced her work hours.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 On June 25, 2021, Connolly\u2019s manager terminated her employment, stating that \u201cshe was becoming \u2018too much of a liability\u2019\u201d and that they would part ways \u201cuntil after the baby.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The EEOC filed suit against the Defendants alleging they discriminated against Connolly on the basis of her pregnancy in violation of Title VII.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. In seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, the Defendants argued: (i) Corner Bar was not an \u201cemployer\u201d under Title VII because it employed fewer than 15 employees during the relevant time period, and (ii) the Defendants were not an integrated single employer enterprise under Title VII.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at *2.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

Magistrate Judge Hightower was unpersuaded by the Defendant\u2019s arguments. As a preliminary matter, Magistrate Judge Hightower held that Title VII\u2019s numerosity requirement was not jurisdictional, and could therefore not serve to support Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Magistrate Judge then applied a four-factor test to determine whether these separate entities were a \u201csingle, integrated enterprise\u201d under Title VII and concluded that the factors weighed in favor of the EEOC.\u00a0 In particular, the Court found the following facts supported the EEOC\u2019s \u201cintegrated business enterprise\u201d allegations: (i) Defendants all shared bartending staff and inventory, (ii) utilized a single Director of Operations to handle all human-resources related services, (iii) jointly marketed their businesses, and (iv) utilized a disciplinary form that bore the logo of each of the Defendants.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at *3.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge found that these facts could support a finding of centralized control of labor relations and recommended the District Court deny Defendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss. Id<\/i>. at *4.<\/p>\n

The Defendants challenged the order by way of Rule 72 objections. On January 3, 2024, District Court Judge Robert Pitman rejected the Rule 72 objections, and accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge\u2019s report and recommendation.<\/p>\n

Implications For Companies<\/b><\/p>\n

As the ruling in EEOC v. 1901 South Lamar, LLC,<\/i> illustrates, even employers with fewer than 15 employees that would ordinarily be exempt from Title VII\u2019s requirements may be sued by the EEOC, provided they have sufficiently integrated affiliates that would collectively put them over Title VII\u2019s numerosity threshold.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Emilee N. Crowther, and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. 1901 South Lamar, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-539, 2024 WL 41202, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2024), U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower\u2019s recommendation to deny Defendants\u2019 three Motions to Dismiss an EEOC … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Texas Federal Court Greenlights EEOC Lawsuit Against Three Companies As Parts Of An Integrated Enterprise”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,105],"class_list":["post-1043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":105,"user_id":677,"is_guest":0,"slug":"cpalacios","display_name":"Christian Palacios","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/12\/PalaciosChristian-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1043"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}