2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-19-2009 

# B eve rl y P r athe r v . P r ude nt i al F ox & Ro a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3374

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Beve rly P r athe r v

. P r ude n t i al F ox & Ro a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1166. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/11661 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3374

___________ BEVE RLY P RATHER ,

A ppel l ant vs. P RUDENTI AL F OX & ROACH

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01264) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 16 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 19, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

B ever l yPr ather , pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof the ap p ell ee ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t and the d en ial o f h er o w n m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e s h a ll a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.2 Fr om J une t o N ovember , 2005, Pr atherw or ked atPr udent i al Fox & R oach ( “PFR ”) , a r eal es t at e company , as a t empora r yadmi ni s t r at i ve ai de. She r ece i ved the j ob t hr ough a s t aff

i ng s ervi ce c al l ed O ffi ceTeam. I n 2007, Pr atherfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a as s er t i ng a cl ai m underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct of 1964. I n par t i cul ar , Pr atheral l eged thats he had be en s ubj ectt o s exual har as s m enti n a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm enton s ever al occa s i ons on t he PFR pr emi s es byan i ndepende nt contr act ors al es as s oci at e w or ki ng forPFR . B ot h Pr atherand PFR fi l ed mot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent . PFR as s er t ed thats i nce Pr atherw or ked foran i ndepende nt contr act orand notforPFR , s he w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rT i t l e V I I . Pr atherar gued t hatt her e exi s t ed no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton hers exual har as s m entcl ai m and that sh e w as e n ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . O n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt i s s ued an or dergr ant i ng PFR ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on and deny i ng Pr ather ’ s m ot i on. A tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l f o llo w e d . B eca us e s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e ther e i s no i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand j udgm enti s appr opr i at e as a mat t erof l aw , ourr evi ew of a gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s pl enary . R os en v. B ezne r , 996 F. 2d 1527, 1530 ( 3d C i r . 1993) (cit ing Jef

fe rson B an k v . P rog ressive C as. Ins. C o . , 9 6 5 F . 2 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )); see F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). A fter rev iew ing the re co rd, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T o e sta b lish a se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t cla im u n d e r T itl e V II o f th e C iv il R ig h tsA s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt n o te s , D a rd e n w a s a n E R IS A c a s e , n o t a T itle V II c a s e . 1 H ow ever , t he s t atut or yl anguage i s i dent i cal . Fur t her m or e, t he Supr eme C our thas ap p li ed D ard en in o ther e m p loy m en t discri m ination co n texts w h ere the s tatu tory defi ni t i on of empl oy ee i s t he s ame as t hati n E R I SA . See C l acka m as G as t r oent er ol ogy A s s o c s . v . W e lls , 5 3 8 U .S . 4 4 0 , 4 4 4 -4 5 (2 0 0 3 ). 3 A ct , Pr atherm us tfi r s tes t abl i s h t hats he i n fac tw as an empl oy ee of PFR , and notof O ffi ceTeam, hert empora r ys t aff i ng agenc y . See M enkow i t z v. Pot t s t ow n M em’l M ed. C tr . , 1 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 3 , 1 2 7 -28 , n . 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (st ati n g that, as u n d er T it le V II, “i ndepende ntcontr act or s ar e notempl oy ees w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A D E A ”) ( Sci r i ca, J. , co n cu rri n g in p art, d issen ti n g in p art) ( cit ing E q u al E m p loy m en t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m ’n v . Z ip p o M f

g . C o ., 7 1 3 F .2 d 3 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 )). In o rd e r to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a p e rso n is an empl oy ee f

orpurpos es of Ti t l e V I I , t he comm on l aw of age ncyand the tr adi t i onal m as t er - s ervantdoctr i ne appl i es . See N at i onw i de M ut . I ns . C o. v. D ar den, 503 U . S. 318, 3 2 2 -24 (19 9 2 ). T h e c o u rtsh o u ld co n side r: 1 t he hi r i ng par t y ’ s r i ghtt o contr ol t he mannerand means by w hi ch the pr oducti s acc om pl i s hed [; ] . . . t he s ki l l r equi r ed; t he s our ce of

t he i ns t rum ent al i t i es and t ool s ; t he l ocat i on of t he w ork; t he d urat i on of the rel at i on shi p b et w een the part i es; w hethert he hi r i ng par t yhas t he r i ghtt o as s i gn addi t i onal p rojec ts t o the h ir ed p arty ; th e e x tent o f th e h ir ed p arty ’s di s cr et i on overw hen and how l ong t o w or k; t he met hod of pay m ent; t he h i red party ’s rol e i n h i ri ng and pay i ng assi st ants ; w hethert he w or k i s par tof the r egul arbus i nes s of the hi r i ng par t y ; w hethert he hi r i ng par t yi s i n bus i nes s ; t he pr ovi s i on of e m p l o ye e b e n e f

i t s ; a n d t h e t a x t r e a t m e n to f t h e h i r e d p a r t y. Id . a t 3 2 3 -2 4 .

T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatunderD ar den, Pr atherw as notan empl oy ee of4

P F R. Af t e rr e v i e wi n g t h e r e c o r d , we a g r e e wi t h t h a ta s s e s s me n t . P r a t h e rs e n th e rt i me s heet s t o, and r ece i ved herpay chec k di r ect l yfr om , O ffi ceTeam; a W 2 fr om 2005 iden ti fies O ff

iceT ea m ’s pa ren t com p an y , R o b ert H alf In terna ti o n al, as P lai n ti ff ’s empl oy er ; O ffi ceTeam pai d hers oci al s ecur i t yt axes and w or ker ’ s compensa t i on i ns ur ance ; Pr athercont act ed O ffi ceTeam ra t hert han PFR i f s he coul d notat t end w or k or had t o s ee a doct or ; PFR coul d onl yus e Pr atherfors ervi ces w i t hi n t he s cope of t he a g re e m e n t w ith O f

f ice T e a m ; P F R d id n o t h a v e th e a b ili tyto ter m in a te h e r e m p lo ym e n t; and PFR w as r es pons i bl e t o O ffi ceTeam fors uper vi s i on of herw or k. T he onl yevi dence Pr athers ubm i t t ed w as an appl i cat i on fora comm i s s i on as a not arypubl i c i n w hi ch s he l i s t ed PFR as herempl oy er . H ow ever , as t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t hi s evi dence i s not di s pos i t i ve s i nce i tw as Pr ather , and notPFR , w ho fi l l ed outt he form . I n concl us i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed PFR ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on beca us e ther e exi s t ed no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherPr atherw as an empl oy ee of PFR . Fort he s a m e re a s o n , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e n ie d P ra th e r’ s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n .

Fi n a l l y , we wi l l d e n yPr a t h e r ’ s “ d e ma n d ” f o rd i s c l o s u r e a n d r e s t i tu t i o n . To t h e e x t e n ts h e s e e k s d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e “ a mo u n to f

f u n d s ” t h i s Co u r th a s r e c e i v e d , we r emi nd hert hatal l fee s forappea l s ar e pay abl e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , nott he C our tof A ppeal s . H err eques tforr es t i tut i on of s uch funds i s t hus deni ed. C os t s w i l l be as s es s ed to th e a p p e lla n t. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 9 (a )( 2 ); L A R 3 9 .