T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of t hi s appea l . T he ca s e i s t her efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 . 1 (G ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly5,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT D IA N E X IE , an in d iv id u a l,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t/ C ro s s -A p p e lle e , N os . 06- 4087 & 06- 4098

v. ( D . U t ah) U N I V E R SI T Y O F U T A H , a hi gher educa t i on i ns t i tut i on and pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on of the St at e of U t ah,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee/ C ro ss -A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CV- 8 6 4 - TC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KEL LY , HENR Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D i ane X i e, Ph. D . , s erved as a r es ear ch as s oci at e pr ofes s ori n the D epart m entof C i vi l and Envi r onm ent al E ngi neer i ng att he U ni ver s i tyof U t ah-2-

fr om Sept ember2000 t o J ul y2003. W hen the U ni ver s i tydeci ded nott o r enew hercontr act , D r . X i e fi l ed thi s act i on underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1 9 6 4 , as a m e n d e d , 4 2 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e to 2 0 0 0 e -1 7 , alle g in g th a t th e U n iv e rsity had di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns theron the bas i s of hernat i onal or i gi n and gende rand had r et al i at ed aga i ns therforcompl ai ni ng aboutthatdi s cr i m i nat i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the U ni ver s i ty ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of su bject m att er jurisdicti o n , rea so n ing that D r. X ie w as n o t th e U n iversity ’s em p loy ee . D r. X ie no w ch all en g es th at de cisi o n . Inv o k ing the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s d e c i s i o n i n Arb a u g h v . Y & H Co rp . , 1 2 6 S . Ct . 1 2 3 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , d e c i d e d o n th e s a me dayt hatt he di s t r i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hercl ai m s , s he ar gues that , contr aryt o the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s vi ew , empl oy ee s t atus i s nota thr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement u n d e r T itl e V II b u t ra th e r a q u e stio n o f fa c t fo r th e ju ry . A d d iti o n a lly , D r. X ie cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n r efus i ng t o al l ow hert o t ake the d e p o sitio n o f

P ro fe ss o r L a w re n c e R e a v e ley, th e c h a ir o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

C iv il a n d E n v ir o n m e n ta l E n g in e e ri n g . T he U ni ver s i t ycr os s - appea l s . A l though i tagr ees that , i n l i ghtof A rbaugh, empl oy ee s t atus i s nota thr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ementunderT i t l e V I I , the U n iv e rsitym a in tain s th a t D r. X ie w a s n o t it s e m p lo y e e a n d th a t, as a re su lt, th is co u rtsh o u ld d ir ec t th e e n tryo f ju d g m en t on the m erit s in it s fa v o r. W e a g r e e t h a te mp l o y e e s t a tu s i s a n e l e me n to f Dr . Xi e ’ s Ti t l e VI I c l a i ms rathe r th an a thre sh o ld jurisdicti o n al req u ir em en t. W e f u rth er c o n clud e tha t D r.-3-

X ie w a s n o t a U n iv e rsitye m p lo y e e a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in re f

u s in g to a llo w D r. X ie to d e p o s e P ro fe s s o r R e a v e le y . A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t he ca s e t o the di s tr i ctcourtw i th i ns truct i ons t o ent eran am en d ed jud g m en t i n fa v o r of the U n iversityo n the m erit s o f D r. X ie’s T it le V II c la im s . I . BA CK GR OUND I n M ar ch of 2000, D r . X i e cont act ed Pr ofes s orL aw r ence D . R eave l ey , t he chai r m an of the U ni ver s i t yof U t ah’ s D epart m entof C i vi l and Envi r onm ent al E ngi neer i ng. She t ol d hi m t hats he w oul d l i ke t o appl yfora fa cul typos i t i on. Pr ofes s orR eave l eyas ked forD r . X i e’ s r es um é, and, upon r evi ew i ng i t , he found a pos i t i on forheri n t he Ener gyand G eos ci ence I ns t i tut e, w hi ch w as aff i l i at ed w ith th e U n iv e rs ity o f U ta h . D r. X ie b e g a n w o rk in g a t E n e rg ya n d G e o s c ie n c e In s titu te in J u ly 2 0 0 0 . W ith in a fe w w e e k s, sh e c o n tac ted P ro fe ss o r R e a v e ley ag a in a n d a sk e d a b o u t a pos i t i on w i t h t he C i vi l and Envi r onm ent al E ngi neer i ng D epart m ent . A l though th e re w e re n o tea c h in g p o sitio n s a v a ilab le, P ro fe ss o r R e a v e ley an d D r. X ie d isc u ss e d th e p o ss ib ili tyo f h e r a ss o c iatin g w ith th e D e p a rtm e n t so th a t sh e c o u ld p u rs u e h e r r e s e a rc h in te re s ts . In Sep t em ber 200 0, D r. X i e recei ved a on e-y ear appo i ntm ent as a

“ R e se a rc h A ss o c iate P ro fe ss o r.” T h e D e p a rtm e n t re n e w e d th is a p p o in tm e n t in J une 2001 and J une 2002, buti tdecl i ned t o do s o i n J une 2003.-4-

A s ect i on of the U ni ver s i t y ’ s pol i cym anual us es the w or d “empl oy ” w hen d iscu ssing “a u x il iaryfa cu lty ” su ch as “ rese arc h , cli n ical, lecture r (or lecturing ), adj unct , orvi s i t i ng fac ul t ym ember s . ” A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I I , at473. T he U ni ver s i t ypr ovi ded D r . X i e w i t h a s har ed off i ce, a s har ed t el ephone, acc es s t o a co p ier, so m e b u sine ss ca rds, an d a m ail b o x . A s a re sea rch asso ciate p rofesso r, D r. X ie w a s s u bjec t to so m e o f th e U n iv e rsity ’s p o licie s re g a rd in g sc ien tific re se a rc h . In p a rticu lar , in o rd e r to e n su re th a t h e r g ra n t p ro p o sa ls c o m p lied w ith U ni ver s i t ys t andar ds , U ni ver s i t yoffi ci al s r evi ew ed herpr opos al s befor e s he su b m itt e d th e m to o u tsid e e n tit ies . T h e U n iv e rsitya lso re tain e d a n o w n e rsh ip in te re s t in a n yw o rk p ro d u c t th a t s h e p ro d u c e d . H o w e v e r, th e U n iv e rsityd id n o t p a yD r. X ie a sa lar yo r p ro v id e h e r w ith i ns ur ance , vaca t i on t i m e, r et i r ement , orotherbenef i t s . A ccor di ng t o D r . X i e, t he U ni ver s i t yagr eed thats he coul d keep a por t i on of the gr antm oneythats he r ece i ved. H ow ever , i ti s undi s put ed thatD r . X i e neve rr ece i ved anygr antm oney dur i ng t he t i m e s he w as as s oci at ed w i th the U ni ver s i ty . A ddi t i onal l y , the U ni ver s i t ydi d notpays oci al s ecur i tyorothert axes on herbehal f. I tdi d not r equi r e hert o w or k a ce r t ai n num berof hour s and di d notm oni t orherday - t o- day w o rk a cti v it ies. D r. X ie did n o t t ea ch an yco u rses, ad v ise stud en ts, o r pe rfo rm a d m in istra tiv e tas k s fo r th e U n iv e rsity . S h e su p p lied h e r o w n c o m p u ter a n d a ll a d d itio n a l s u p p lie s .-5-

A f ter th e U n iv e rsityd e c lin e d to re n e w h e r a p p o in tm e n t, D r. X ie filed th is T i t l e V I I act i on, al l egi ng t hatt he dec i s i on w as bas ed on hernat i onal or i gi n and g e n d e r a n d w a s ta k e n in re ta lia tio n fo r h e r c o m p la in ts a b o u t th a t d is c ri m in a tio n . S h o rt lyaf

ter fil ing the c o m p lai n t, sh e so u g h t t o take P rofesso r R ea v eley ’s depos i t i on. H ow ever , t he U ni ver s i tyobj ect ed on the gr ounds thatD r . X i e had not c o m p lied w ith h e r o w n d isc lo su re o b lig a tio n s u n d e r th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . Subse quent l y , t he U ni ver s i tyfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng thatthe dis t ri ctcou rtl acked subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on ov er the T i t l e V II cl ai m s becau se D r. X ie w as n o t i ts em p loy ee . D r. X ie th en m o v ed the c o u rtto o rde r P rofesso r R e a v e ley’s d e p o sitio n . A m a g istra te ju d g e g ra n ted th e m o tio n , b u t th e U n iv e rsity appea l ed thatrul i ng t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , ar gui ng thatthe courts houl d s t ay di s coveryunt i l i trul ed on the mot i on t o di s m i s s . A ta mot i ons hear i ng, the d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d th a t r e q u e s t. In a F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 O rd e r a n d M e m o ra n d u m D e c isio n , the d istric t co u rt g ra n ted th e U n iv e rsity ’s m o tio n to d ism iss . T h e c o u rt a p p lied a m u lti -fa c to r te st t o det erm i ne w hetherD r . X i e w as the U ni ver s i ty ’ s empl oy ee. See A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I , at299- 300 ( D i s t . C t . M emora ndum D eci s i on) ( ci t i ng L amber t s en v. U t ah D e p ’t o f C o rrs ., 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 )). U n d e r th a t tes t, th e m a in focus i s w hethert he al l eged e m pl oy ercontr ol s the means and mannerof the w o rk e r’ s p e rfo rm a n c e . L a m b e rt s e n , 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 8 .-6-

H er e, t he courtacknow l edged, s om e fa ct or s w ei ghed i n favorof c o n sid e rin g D r. X ie a n e m p lo y e e . H o w e v e r, th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d , the U n iv e rsity had “mi ni m al abi l i t y. . . t o contr ol the means and mannerof [D r . ] X i e’ s w or k, ” a n d “ th e a ffid a v its s u b m itte d b yb o th p a rt ie s in d ic a te th a t th e U n iv e rs ity a n d [ D r.] X ie i n tend ed to en ter i n to a lo o se a sso ciati o n rathe r th an a fo rm al em p loy erempl oy ee r el at i ons hi p. ” A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I , at302- 03. T hus , D r . X i e w as nott he U niver si t y ’s em ploy ee, and t he co urtl acked j uri sdi ct i on ov er herT i t l e V II cl ai m s. D r . X i e fi l ed tw o pos t -j udgm entm ot i ons . She cont ended that , i n l i ghtof A rb a u g h v . Y & H C o rp ., 1 2 6 S . C t. 12 3 5 (2 0 0 6 ), th e d istric t co u rt h a d e rre d in char act er i zi ng empl oy ee s t atus as a thr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ementunder T i t l e V II . T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed b oth m oti on s.

I I . DI S CU S S I ON D r . X i e cha l l enges t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng thats he w as notthe U ni ver s i t y ’ s empl oy ee a nd i t s deci s i on nott o al l ow hert o depos e Pr ofes s or R e a v e ley. T h e U n iv e rsityre sp o n d s th a t alth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt d id e rr in h o lding that itlack ed su bject m att er jurisdicti o n , this co u rtsh o u ld d ir ec t th e e n try of j udgm enti n i t s favoron t he mer i t s of D r . X i e’ s T i t l e V I I cl ai m s beca us e the u n d is p u te d fa c ts e s ta b lis h th a t s h e w a s n o t th e U n iv e rs ity’s e m p lo y e e . B ot h D r . X i e’ s chal l enge t o the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of hercompl ai nt and the U ni ver s i t y ’ s ar gum entforaff i r m ance on al t ernat i ve gr ounds r ai s e l egal-7-

i s s ues t hatw e exa m i ne de novo. See G eor gaca r akos v. U ni t ed St at es , 420 F. 3d 11 85 , 11 86 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( revi ew i ng de n ov o the grantof a m oti on t o d i sm i ss forl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on) ; St effeyv. O r m an, 461 F. 3d 1218, 1221 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng t hatw hethers um m aryj udgm enti s w arr ant ed i s al s o a l egal ques t i on) . W e r evi ew foran abus e of di s cr et i on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on nott o al l ow D r . X i e t o depos e Pr ofes s orR eave l ey . Shakl ee Corp. v. G unnel l , 748 F . 2d 54 8, 55 0 (10th C i r. 19 84 ). A tri al cou rtabu ses i t s di scr et i on w hen i ti ssues a rul i ng t hati s “arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , w hi m s i cal , orm ani fes t l yunr eas onabl e. ” C o le tti v . C u d d P re s s u re C o n tr o l, 1 6 5 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).

A . E m pl oy ee St atus i s nota Thre s hol d J ur i s di ct i onal I s s ue T i t l e V I I pr ohi bi t s unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ces by“an e m pl oy er . ” 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (a ). T h e sta tu te d e fin e s “ a n e m p lo y e r” a s “ a p e rso n e n g a g e d in a n in d u s tr ya ffe c tin g c o m m e rc e w h o h a s fif te e n o r m o re e m p lo y e e s .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e( b) . A n “empl oy ee” i s “an i ndi vi dual empl oy ed byan empl oy er . ” 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (f). H e re , the re is n o d isp u te th a t th e U n iv e rsityis a n “ e m p lo y e r” u n d e r T itl e V I I : i ti s engage d i n an i ndus t r yaffect i ng comm er ce a nd has m or e than fi ft een empl oy ees . H ow ever , t he part i es do di s put e w hetherD r . X i e her s el f w as e m p lo y e d b yth e U n iv e rs ity. S in c e W h e e ler v . H u rd m a n , 8 2 5 F .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ), th is c irc u it has t r eat ed the def

i ni t i ons at§ 2000e as both s ubs t ant i ve and j ur i s di ct i onal .-8-

H ow ever , i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A rbaugh, w e now concl ude t hatempl oy ee s t atus i s an el ementof D r . X i e’ s T i t l e V I I cl ai m s r athert han a m at t erof s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on . I n A rbaugh, t he C our tcons i der ed the pr ovi s i on of Ti t l e V I I t hats t at es t hat the s tatu te’s pro tecti o n s o n lyap p lyto tho se e m p loy ers tha t hav e fift ee n o r m o re empl oy ees . 42 U . S. C . § 2000e( b) . T he C ourthel d thatt he r equi r ementw as “an e lem e n t o f

th e p lain tiff ’s c laim fo r re lief, n o t a ju risd ictio n a l issu e ” b e c a u se it appea r ed “i n a s epar at e pr ovi s i on thatdoes nots peak i n j ur i s di ct i onal t erm s or r efe ri n anyw ayt o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the di s tr i ctcourt s . ” 126 S. C t . at1245 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). L i ke the fi ft een- or - m or e- empl oy ees r equi r ement , t he Ti t l e V I I pr ovi s i on t hatext ends t he s t atut or ypr ot ect i ons t o empl oy ees butnoti ndepende nt c o n tr a c to rs is s e t fo rt h in th e d e fin itio n a l s e c tio n o f th e s ta tu te . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (f). A s w ith th e fif tee n -o r-m o re e m p lo y e e s re q u ire m e n t ad d re ss e d in A rbaugh, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatC ongr es s cons i der ed empl oy ee s t atus t o be a t hr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement . W e ther efor e conc l ude thatD r . X i e w as not r equi r ed t o pr ove as a thr es hol d j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ementt hats he w as an empl oy ee of

t he U ni ver s i t y . I ns t ead, heral l eged e m pl oy ee s t atus i s an el ementof her T i t l e V II cl ai m s. H e re , the d istric t co u rt m a yw e ll h a v e c o n c lu d e d f ro m o u r d e c isio n in W heelert hat i tw as not necessaryt o d et erm i ne w hetherem ploy ee st atus w as a-9-

q u e s tio n o f

s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o r a n e le m e n t o f D r. X ie ’s T itle V II c la im s . I n a n ye v e n t , b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e re x p r e s s l ys t a t e s th a tth e c l a i ms w er e di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, w e mustnow cons i der w hetheri n l i ghtof A rbaugh w e mustr ever s e and r emand i t s deci s i on for di s covery , a r ound of s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons , and perhaps a tr i al . I n A rbaugh, t he C our texpl ai ned the pot ent i al cons equenc es of charact eri zi ng an is sue as on e of su bjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on . F i rs t , becau se s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on i nvol ves t he court ’ s pow ert o heara ca s e, i tcan ne ver be for fei t ed orw ai ved. T hus , court s have a n i ndepende ntobl i gat i on t o det erm i ne w hethers ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on exi s t s , even i n the abs ence of a c hal l enge f r om anypar t y . Second, i n s om e i ns t ance s , i f s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on turns on cont es t ed fa ct s , t he tr i al j udge maybe author i zed t o r evi ew t he evi dence and r es ol ve the di s put e on herow n; i n contr as t , i f s at i s fac t i on of an e s s ent i al el ement o f a c la im fo r r e lie f

is a t is s u e , th e ju ry is th e p ro p e r t ri e r o f c o n te s te d fa c ts . T hi r d, w hen a feder al cour tconcl udes t hati tl acks s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, t he cou rtm ustdis m i ss the co m plai nt i n it s ent i rety ; i n co ntr ast , w hen a cou rtgrant s a m ot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a feder al cl ai m , t he courtgener al l yr et ai ns di s cr et i on t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1367, overpendents t at e- l aw cl ai m s . A rbaugh, 126 S. C t . at1244- 45. H e re , the first p o ten tial c o n se q u e n c e is n o t in p lay. U n lik e th e d e fe n d a n t in A rb a u g h , w h o d id n o t ra ise th e iss u e o f th e n u m b e r o f

e m p lo y e e s o n its p a yro ll-10-

u n ti l tw o w ee k s af

ter th e e n tryo f ju d g m en t on a juryv erd ict , the U n iversityh ere r ai s ed the ques t i on of D r . X i e’ s s t atus i n a pr etr i al m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T her efor e, t her e i s no conce r n t hat , byi ncorr ect l ychar act er i zi ng the empl oy ee- s t atus i s s ue as ju risd ictio n a l, th e d istric t co u rt p e rm itt e d a p a rtyto ra ise a d e fe n se th a t w o u ld have otherw i s e bee n w ai ved bec aus e i tw as notas s er t ed i n a t i m el yfas hi on. T he thi r d pot ent i al cons equenc e of i ncorr ect l ychar act er i zi ng the empl oy ee i s s ue as j ur i s di ct i onal i s al s o notpr es enther e. D r . X i e di d notas s er tanypendent s t at e cl ai m s i n hercompl ai nt . T hus , w e nee d notconce rn our s el ves w i th the effectof di s t r i ctcour t ’ s char act er i zat i on of the i s s ue as j ur i s di ct i onal on s uch o th e r c la im s . H ow ever , t he s econd pot ent i al cons equenc e not ed i n A rbaugh r equi r es clos er e x am ination . T h e d istri ct co u rtrev iew ed the p arti es’ e v iden ti ary s ubm i s s i ons and conc l uded thatD r . X i e w as notan empl oy ee. B eca us e the em p loy ee -st atus issue inv o lved the m erit s o f D r. X ie’s T it le V II clai m s, the c o u rt w a s n o t allo w e d to re so lv e c o n tes ted fa c ts. S e e id . at 1 2 4 4 . W e th e re fo re tu rn to t he ques t i on of w hethert he uncont es t ed fa ct s es t abl i s h thatD r . X i e w as notan e m p lo y e e o f

th e U n iv e rs ity.

B . A l l eged Em pl oy ee St atus D r . X i e ar gues t hata r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have c oncl uded thats he w as an empl oy ee of

t he U ni ver s i t y . I n s uppor tof thatar gum ent , s he poi nt s t o the U ni ver s i t y ’ s s t at ement s i n i t s pol i cym anual that“auxi l i aryfac ul ty , ” l i ke r es ear ch-11-

as s oci at e pr ofes s or s , ar e “e m pl oy [ed] ” bythe U ni ver s i ty . A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I I , at 473. A ddi t i onal l y , s he al l eges t hat“i tw as the part i es ’ i nt entt o payher$80, 000 annual l yfr om gr antm oney s . ” A pl t ’ s B r . at20. Fi nal l y , s he ar gues thatthe d istri ct co u rt ’s ob serv ati o n s ab o u t th e U n iversity ’s l ac k o f c o n tr o l ov er h er w o rk are i rr el evan tbecau se al l professors , i n li gh tof ac adem i c freedom pri ncipl es, w o r k i n d e p e n d e n t l y. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tobs erved, i n det erm i ni ng w hethera partyi s an empl oy ee pr ot ect ed byT i t l e V I I , w e appl ya mul t i - fac t ort es tunderw hi ch the m ai n focus i s w hethert he al l eged e m pl oy ercontr ol l ed “the means and mannerby w hi ch the w or k i s acc om pl i s hed. ” Lam bert s en, 79 F. 3d at1028. T he courtm ay c o n sid e r m a n yo th e r fa c to rs, in c lu d in g : (1 ) th e k in d o f o c c u p a tio n a t issu e , w ith r e fe r e n c e t o w h e t h e rt h e w o r k i s d o n e a tth e d i r e c t i o n o f a s u p e r v i s o ro rb y a s peci al i s tw i t houts upervi s i on; ( 2) the s ki l l r equi r ed; ( 3) w hetherthe empl oy eror t he empl oy ee f

ur ni s hes t he equi pm entus ed and the pl ace of w or k; ( 4) the l ength of t i m e the i ndi vi dual has w or ked; ( 5) the met hod of paym ent , w hetherbyt i m e orby j ob; ( 6) t he manneri n w hi ch the w or k r el at i ons hi p i s t erm i nat ed; ( 7) w hether annual l eave i s affor ded; ( 8) w hetherthe w or k i s an i nt egr al partof the bus i nes s of t he empl oy er ; ( 9) w hethert he w or keracc um ul at es r et i r ementbenef i t s ; ( 10) w hethert he empl oy erpay s s oci al s ecur i tyt axes ; and ( 11) the i nt ent i on of the p a rt ie s . Id .-12-

U pon cons i der at i on of thes e fa ct or s , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatt he un dis pu t ed fa ct s est abli sh t hat D r. X i e w as not the U niver si ty ’s em ploy ee. M ost im p o rta n tly , the U n iv e rsitye x e rc ise d v e rylittle, if a n y , co n tro l o v e r h e r d a ily act i vi t i es . D ur i ng hert i m e as a r es ear ch as s oci at e pr ofes s or , D r . X i e coul d pur s ue w hat everr es ear ch ac t i vi t i es s he chos e. She had no t eac hi ng, advi s i ng, or admi ni s t r at i ve obl i gat i ons t o t he U ni ver s i ty , and s he r ece i ved no r egul ar s upervi s i on i n t he conduc tof herr es ear ch. T hatdegr ee of i ndepende nce underm i nes hercont ent i on t hats he w as an empl oy ee. See W i l de v. C ountyof K and i y oh i , 15 F . 3d 10 3, 10 6 (8t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( con cl ud i ng that the p l ai nti ff b usi ness o w n e r w a s n o t an e m p lo y e e b e c a u se sh e “ m a in tain e d a g re a t d e a l o f f re e d o m in choos i ng herw or ki ng hour s and choos i ng the s ervi ces s he w oul d pr ovi de”) ( i nt e r na l qu ot a t i on marks omi t t e d) ; Pi s ha r od i v. V a l l e yBapt i s tM e d. Ct r . , 39 3 F. Supp. 2d 561, 571 ( S. D . T ex. 2005) ( concl udi ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff phy s i ci an w as notan empl oy ee of

defe ndanthos pi t al underT i t l e V I I and r eas oni ng that

“ [ a ]lth o u g h [ th e p lain tiff ’s] sta ff p riv ileg e s c o u ld b e re v o k e d b y[ th e h o sp ital] (e ffe c tiv e ly‘firin g ’ h im ), [ th e h o sp ital] h a d n o rig h t to su p e rv ise h im a n d c o u ld notcontr ol hi s w or k s chedul e” a nd thatthe pl ai nt i ff “ w as fr ee t o w or k i f and w hen he s o des i r ed and t o w or k i n t he mannerof hi s choos i ng”) ; T adr os v. C ol eman, 717 F. Supp. 996 , 998, 1005 ( S. D . N . Y . 1989) ( concl udi ng thatt he pl ai nt i ff, appoi nt ed a “V i s i t i ng L ectur eri n O pht hal m ol ogy , ” w as notan empl oy ee of a medi cal s chool beca us e “[ none] of the of the M edi cal C ol l ege’ s fac ul tyas s i gn[ed] [the pl ai nt i ff]-13-

a n yw o rk o r a ttem p t[ e d ] to e x e rc ise a n yc o n tro l o v e r w h a t [ th e p lain tiff] trie d to d o ” ), a ff ’d , 8 9 8 F .2 d 1 0 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). M or eover , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s tr i ctcourtthataddi t i onal fac t s w ei gh a g a in st D r. X ie’ s c o n ten tio n th a t sh e w a s a n e m p lo y e e . T h e U n iv e rsityn e v e r p a id h e r a sa lar y , n e v e r p ro v id e d h e r w ith e m p lo ym e n t-re late d b e n e fits, an d n e v e r p a id s oci al s ecur i t yorot hert axes on herbehal f. M or eover , the s uppl i es pr ovi ded by t he U niver si t yw ere m i nim al (a s hared o ffi ce, a shared t el eph on e, bu si ness cards, a n d th e u se o f

a n o ffice c o p ym a c h in e ). S e e Y o rk v . A ss ’n o f th e B a r o f

th e C ity of N . Y . , 286 F. 3d 122, 126 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( concl udi ng thata mem berof a ba r as s oci at i on’ s i nt ernat i onal l aw comm i t t ee w as notan empl oy ee de s pi t e the fa ct t h a tt h e a s s o c i a t i o n h a d p r o v i d e d h e rw i th w o r k s p a c e , c l e r i c a l s u p p o r t , p u b l i c i ty, and rei m bu rs em ent for out -of- po cket expen ses) . A dd i t i on al l y , as w e dis cuss b e lo w , the fa c ts n o ted b yD r. X ie in h e r a p p e llate b rie f d o n o t co n stitu te c o lo ra b le e v id e n c e o f

e m p lo y e e s ta tu s . F ir st, the fac u ltyreg u lat ion s tha t she inv o k es o n lyb ri eflyu se th e term “empl oy ” i n addr es s i ng t he r ol e of “ auxi l i aryfac ul ty . ” Theys t at e that“[i ] n l i ght of the U ni ver s i t y ’ s need t o r et ai n the fl exi bi l i tyt o adj us ti t s pr ogr ams t o m eet changi ng needs and t o empl oyfac ul tyw i th m or e s peci al i zed foci t o thatend, au x il iaryfa cu ltym ayb e a p p o inted as re sea rch , cli n ical, lecture r (or lecturing ), a dju n c t o r v is itin g fa c u lty m e m b e rs a s f u rt h e r d e fin e d in th e s e c tio n s b e lo w .” A p lt’s A p p . v o l. III, at 4 7 3 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re g u latio n s th e n d e sc rib e in-14-

gener al t erm s t he r ol es of var i ous cat egor i es of “a uxi l i aryfac ul ty , ” i ncl udi ng

“ re se a rc h fa c u lty ” lik e D r. X ie:

R es ear ch Facul t y. . . [, ] i ndi vi dual s w h o p arti ci pat e i n the u n iversity ’s ac ad em ic pro g ra m . . . b u t w h o se p ri m ary pr ofes s i onal effo rt s ar e devot ed t o one orm or e r es ear ch pr oj ect s, ornonaca demi c tr ai ni ng pr oj ect s [, ] m aybe ap p o inted to the ran k o f p rofesso r, asso c ia te pro fe sso r, a s s is ta n t p ro fe ss o r, o r in stru c to r. . . . A p p o in tm e n ts to “r es ear ch” posit i ons ar e w i thouts i gni fi canc e forthe achi evi ng orhol di ng of t enur e. I d. at474. T hes e r egul at i ons do notpurpor tt o des cr i be i n det ai l the r es pons i bi l i t i es of par t i cul aras s oci at e r es ear ch fa cul ty . T heyal l ow i ndi vi dual col l eges and d ep artm en ts t o d efine th e re sp o n sibil it ies o f a u x il iaryfa cu ltyw ith m o re p a r t i c u l a r i t y a n d t h u s a d d l i t t l e t o th e i n q u i ry. Second, D r . X i e’ s al l egat i on thatthe U ni ver s i tyagr eed t o payheran $80, 000 s al aryoutof gr antm oneyi s bel i ed bythe r ecor d. I n s uppor tof that con t enti on , D r. X i e rel i es on a P ers on nel A ct i on N oti fi cat i on F orm , dated A ug ust 1 , 2 0 0 0 , th a t lis ts a s a la ry o f th a t a m o u n t. A p lt’ s A p p . v o l. I , a t 1 8 3 . H o w e v e r, t he U ni ver s i t yhas s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tfr om a payr ol l offi cerexpl ai ni ng thatt he documentati s s ue r el at es t o D r . X i e’ s pos i t i on w i th the Ener gyand G eos ci ence I ns t i tut e, a pos i t i on t hatD r . X i e br i efl yhel d befor e s he w as appoi nt ed a r es ear ch as s oci at e pr ofes s or . See A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I , at185- 87 ( aff i davi tof J ani ce S h e rw o o d ).-15-

Fi nal l y , contr aryt o hercont ent i on, pr i nci pl es of ac ademi c fr eedom do not hel p D r . X i e’ s cas e. I ti s t rue thatthe U ni ver s i tyaffor ds i t s fac ul tys ubs t ant i al i ndepende nce i n i nt el l ectual pur s ui t s . H ow ever , the r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatthe r el at i ons hi p betw een the U ni ver s i tyand D r . X i e w as farm or e att enuat ed than that o f a n e d u c a tio n a l in stitu tio n a n d its fa c u ltye m p lo y e e s. A s w e h a v e n o ted , D r. X ie had no t eac hi ng oradmi ni s t r at i ve obl i gat i ons and r ece i ved no r egul ars upervi s i on oreval uat i on. A s i de fr om t he r equi r ementthats he s ubm i thergr antpr opos al s t o a U ni ver s i t ycomm i t t ee a nd t he fa ctthats he w as s ubj ectt o the U ni ver s i ty ’ s rul es on r es ear ch mi s conduct , t he U ni ver s i tyhad l i t t l e, i f any , contr ol overherday - t o- day act i vi t i es . W e ther efor e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthat“[t ] oo m anycr i t i cal co m p o n en ts of

a trad it ion al em p loym en t r elati o n sh ip are ab sen t here . ” A p lt ’s A p p . v o l. I I, a t 3 0 3 . C . Pr ofes s orR eave l ey ’ s D epos i t i on F in a lly , D r. X ie c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in r efus i ng t o al l ow hert o t ake the depos i t i on of Pr ofes s orR eave l ey , t he cha i r m an of the U n iversity ’s D ep artm en t of C ivil an d E n v ir o n m en tal E n g inee ri n g , b efo re rul i ng on t he U ni ver s i t y ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . D r . X i e mai nt ai ns t hats he r eques t ed that the c o u rtall o w d isco v eryp u rsua n t t o F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (f) b u t th at th e c o u rt d en ied th e re q u est, there fo re d ep ri v ing h er o f “ ad eq u ate d isco v ery ” b efo re d ism issi n g h er c o m p lai n t. A p lt ’s B r. at 28 . D r. X ie also a rgu es th at th e c o u rt e rr e d in d e c id in g th e is s u e w ith o u t a llo w in g o ra l a rg u m e n t.-16-

In c o n sid e rin g th e se c o n ten tio n s, w e first n o te th e p ro c e d u ra l co n tex t in w hi ch the courtdi s m i s s ed D r . X i e’ s compl ai nt . T he U ni ver s i tyhad fi l ed a mot i on t o d i s mi s s , a l l e g i n g a l a c k o f s u bj e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n . P r i o rt o th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A rbaugh ( di s cus s ed above ) , the part i es r eas onabl ybel i eved t hatt he ques t i on of D r . X i e’ s empl oy ee s t atus r ai s ed a thr es hol d i s s ue of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. See A rbaugh, 126 S. C t . at1242 ( not i ng “conf l i ct i ng opi ni ons in C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls o n th e q u e stio n w h e th e r T itl e V II’s e m p lo y e e -n u m e ro sity r equi r ement , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e( b) , i s j ur i s di ct i onal ors i m pl yan el ementof a pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m forr el i ef” ) ; W heel er , 825 F. 2d at259 ( s t at i ng that“the det erm i nat i on of w hether[the pl ai nt i ff] qual i fi es as an empl oy ee unde rthe fe der al di s cr i m i nat i on s t atut es i s bot h a j ur i s di ct i onal ques t i on and an a s pectof the su b sta n tiv e c laim in h e r d isc rim in a tio n a c tio n ” ). T h u s, b e c a u se th e U n iv e rsityd id n o t file a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n , F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (f), w h ich a llo w s th e p a rty r es pondi ng t o a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on t o r eques tfur therdi s covery , w as not di r ect l yappl i cabl e. See Pr i ce e x r el . Pr i ce v. W . R es . , I nc. , 232 F. 3d 779, 783 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (no ti n g that the c en tr al t en et of R u le 56 (f) is th at “su m m ary j udgm ent[s houl d] be r efus ed w her e the nonmovi ng partyhas nothad the oppor tuni t yt o di s coveri nform at i on thati s es s ent i al t o hi s oppos i t i on”) ( quot i ng A n d e rso n v . L ib e rtyL o b b y , In c ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 5 0 n .5 (1 9 8 6 ) (a ltera tio n in P ri c e )) .-17-

M or eover , contr aryt o hercont ent i on i n herappel l at e br i ef, D r . X i e neve r filed a R u le 5 6 (f) a ffid a v it req u e stin g a d d iti o n a l d isc o v e ryb e fo re re sp o n d in g to th e m e rits o f

h e r m o tio n . In ste a d sh e m e re lyfiled a m o tio n fo r le a v e to file a R u le 56( f) m ot i on. See A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I , at217- 220. N e v e rth e les s, re q u e sts fo r a d d iti o n a l d isc o v e ryto re sp o n d to m o tio n s to di s m i s s al l egi ng a l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on ( l i ke the U ni ver s i ty ’ s m ot i on h ere ) are g o v ern ed b yp ri n ciples re sem b li n g tho se e stab li sh ed in su m m ary j udgm entpr act i ce unde rFed. R . C i v. P. 56. I n par t i cul ar , w e have hel d that

“ [ w ]h e n a d e fe n d a n t m o v e s to d ism iss fo r la c k o f ju risd ictio n , eith e r p a rtysh o u ld b e a ll o w ed d isco v eryo n the fac tual issue s raised b ythat m o ti o n . ” S izov a v . N at’l I ns t . of St andar ds & T ech. 282 F. 3d 1320, 1326 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). A d d iti o n a lly , alth o u g h a d istric t co u rt h a s d isc re tio n in th e m a n n e r b yw h ich it res o lv e s a n iss u e o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) , a r efus al t o gr antdi s coverym aycons t i tut e an a bus e of d is c re tio n if

th e d e n ia l r e s u lts in p reju d ic e to th e p a rt yre s p o n d in g to th e m o tio n . I d. Pr ej udi ce i s pr es entw her e “pe r t i nentfac t s bear i ng on the ques t i on of ju risd ictio n a re c o n tro v e rte d . . . o r w h e re a m o re sa tisfa c to rysh o w in g o f th e fa c ts i s nece s s ary . ” I d. ( quot i ng W el l s Far go & C o. v. W el l s Far go E xpr es s C o. , 556 F. 2d 406, 430 n. 24 ( 9t h C i r . 1977) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons o m itted)).-18-

H ere, D r. X i e has fail ed to est abli sh t hat herl ack o f op po rtun i tyt o d epo se Pr ofes s orR eave l eypr ej udi ced he rw i th r egar d t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thats he w as notan empl oy ee of t he U ni ver s i ty . I n nei therherappel l at e br i ef nori n the d istric t co u rt p a p e rs to w h ich sh e n o w re fe rs, s e e A p lt’s B r. at 2 7 , d o e s D r. X ie c o n ten d th a t sh e n e e d e d to o b tain in fo rm a tio n f ro m P ro fe ss o r R e a v e ley i n o rd e r to adequa t el yr es pond t o t he U ni ver s i ty ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . M or eover , as the U ni ver s i t ynot es , D r . X i e pr es ent ed herow n aff i davi ti n r es pons e t o the U n iv e rsity ’s m o tio n . If th e re w e re a d d iti o n a l fa c ts n o t n o ted b yth e U n iv e rsity t hati ndi cat ed thatt he U ni ver s i t ycontr ol l ed “the means and mannerbyw hi ch the w or k i s acc om pl i s hed, ” and thus s uppor t ed hertheorythats he w as an empl oy ee of t he U ni ver s i t y , D r . X i e her s el f w oul d s eem t o be i n as good a pos i t i on as Pr ofes s or R eave l eyt o t es t i fyaboutt hos e fa ct s . L amber t s en, 79 F. 3d at1029. D r . X i e has al s o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hats he w as pr ej udi ced bythe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on not to a llo w o ra l ar g u m e n ts o n th is iss u e . S e e In re Y o u n g , 9 1 F .3 d 1 3 6 7 , 1 3 7 7 (1 0 th C i r . 1996) ( r ej ect i ng a cha l l enge t o the deni al of or al ar gum entabs enta s how i ng o f p reju d ic e ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e ther efor e conc l ude thatD r . X i e w as notempl oy ed bythe U ni ver s i tyand that, as a resu lt , the U n iversityis en ti tl ed to jud g m en t i n it s fa v o r on D r. X ie’s T i t l e V I I cl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , w e V A C A T E the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s j udgm ent d i s mi s s i n g Dr . Xi e ’ s c l a i ms fo rl a c k o f s u bj e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n a n d RE M AND-19-

the c ase fo r th e e n tryo f ju d g m en t i n fa v o r of the U n iversityo n the m erit s o f D r. X i e’s T i t l e V II cl ai m s.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge