Opinion ID: 1822373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Grant of Summary Judgment

Text: Having determined that the federal doctrine of successor-employer liability applies, the question becomes whether liability under that doctrine exists as a matter of law, based on undisputed facts, or whether there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Most of the federal successor-employer liability cases do not arise on summary judgment. In fact, genuine issues of material fact may often exist because, as stated in MacMillan: Each case, however, must be determined on its own facts. What is required is a balancing of the purposes of Title VII with the legitimate and often conflicting interests of the employer and the discriminatee. 503 F.2d at 1090-91. But, there are cases where the facts are undisputed and the successor employer liability doctrine has been applied in a summary-judgment context. For example, in G-K-G, Inc., the district court granted summary judgment on the issue of successor-employer liability. 39 F.3d at 747. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that there were no fact disputes on the elements of continuity of business and notice. Id. at 748. Jillian's has not contested the underlying facts or argued that there are genuine issues of material fact. Instead, it has focused on alternative legal theories. Thus, we may consider the facts to be undisputed and determine whether, as a matter of law, Jillian's is a successor-employer under Title VII. Continuity of business is a key factor in determining whether an employer is a successor-employer for liability purposes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 376 U.S. at 551, 84 S.Ct. 909. Here, substantial continuity is shown by the undisputed facts. Gators is the same restaurant in the same location run by the same people. The continuity of business test should properly focus on the entire business of Gators, not just on one or more of the legal entities that were created to operate that business. Although Greene and McReynolds were free to unbundle the business into as many legal entities as they choose, the policies that underlie Title VII cannot be avoided by attempting to confine the employer function to a limited entity that has no purpose independent of the business as a whole. Greene and McReynolds were only able to operate Gators by joining the efforts of all of the related entities. [3] By the combination of the APA and TSA, Jillian's acquired control of all of the entities, or portions of entities, that operated Gators. We agree with the district court that continuity of the business has been established as a matter of law. Similarly, Jillian's does not contend that it did not have notice of Johns' judgment against Harborage I. Indeed, the TSA required Jillian's to employ Harborage I's human resources director, who was actively involved in the litigation with Johns. Jillian's was therefore charged with notice of the judgments and had an opportunity to protect itself in negotiating the price and the terms of indemnification. Indeed, the APA does provide indemnity to Jillian's from any adverse consequences [Jillian's] may suffer resulting from, arising out of, relating to, in the nature of, or caused by any retained liability. We agree with the district court that notice has been established as a matter of law. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgments of the district court against Jillian's. Reversed.