Opinion ID: 3155688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The necessity of an employment relationship

Text: Title VII forbids, among other things, “status-based discrimination by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2530 (2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)-(d)). Faush alleges that Tuesday Morning was his “employer” and discriminated against him on the basis of race. Accordingly, in order to prevail on his Title VII claim, he must demonstrate the existence of an “employment relationship” with Tuesday Morning. Covington v. Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 119 (3d Cir. 2013).3 3 Certain Courts of Appeals have held that a defendant may be liable for interfering with employment opportunities even if that defendant is not the plaintiff’s employer, while others reject this theory of liability. See Gulino v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 460 F.3d 361, 373-76 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing Sibley Mem’l Hosp. v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and collecting cases from other circuits). As Faush does not argue that Tuesday Morning is liable on this basis, we need not consider this possibility. 9 Claims brought under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 et seq., are generally “‘interpreted coextensively with Title VII claims.’” Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 179 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Atkinson v. LaFayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 454 n.6 (3d Cir. 2006)). Although the Act protects certain limited categories of independent contractors that Title VII does not, see id. at 179 n.1, Faush does not invoke these protections or dispute that he must demonstrate an employment relationship to prevail on his state-law claim.