Opinion ID: 205127
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DuPont

Text: In the employment discrimination context, a parent corporation will be held responsible as an employer only where it and the subsidiary are “„so interrelated and integrated in their activities, labor relations and management‟ that we should pierce the corporate veil.” Marzano v. Computer Sci. Corp., 91 F.3d 497, 514 (3d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Wellman conceded that DDE was her employer during the time the alleged conduct occurred. However, she argued that DuPont is liable for the actions of its subsidiaries, and that it was responsible, through the EAC, for her termination. The District Court concluded that there was no evidence showing that DuPont‟s and DDE‟s 4 operations were interrelated. It noted that Wellman did not claim that Dupont and DDE shared common management, ownership, or financial management. DDE alone paid her wages, and DuPont was not consulted about her termination. Finally, the District Court considered that the National Labor Relations Board has determined that DuPont and DDE are not alter egos of each other. In re DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C., 332 N.L.R.B. 1071 (2000). We agree that Wellman failed to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial regarding DuPont‟s status as her employer. See Saldana, 260 F.3d at 232. Accordingly, the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of DuPont.