Opinion ID: 700499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ADEA & the Nevada Employment Discrimination Statutes

Text: 28 Both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) and the Nevada employment discrimination statutes contain statutory definitions of employers that limit the applicability of these acts to employers that have at least 20 and 15 employees respectively. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621-634; Nev.Rev.Stat. 613.310(1). Herman's employer, Carpenter's Local 971, had seven employees as of June 1991 when Herman was fired. Thus, a claim under either of these statutes appears to be unavailable to Herman. To overcome this hurdle, Herman offers two arguments: first, that a local union is simply a segment of the larger international union, and thus, the employees of all of the member locals should be aggregated for purposes of the statutory requirements; and second, that a labor organization is subject to the requirements of these Acts regardless of its number of employees. We reject both of these arguments. 29 Herman's first argument is analogous to the one presented in Childs v. Electrical Workers, et al., 719 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir.1983). The plaintiff in Childs brought suit under Title VII which contains a definition of employer virtually identical to that in the ADEA, the difference being that under Title VII an entity is an employer if it has 15 employees while under the ADEA, the requirement is 20. The plaintiff in Childs argued that although her employer-local-union had fewer than the requisite 15 employees, the local and its International union should be treated as one entity. We adopted a four-part test to determine whether two employing entities constitute a single employer for purposes of Title VII. 719 F.2d at 1382. The factors to be considered are: 1) inter-relation of operations; 2) common management; 3) centralized control of labor relations; and 4) common ownership or financial control. Id. Applying this test, we decided that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the local and the international union were a single employer. Id. 30 Recognizing that the Childs analysis is equally applicable to the ADEA context, Herman argues that her employer satisfies the standard because under the International constitution the International charters the local unions, receives dues from the locals, has the power to dissolve locals and receive their assets, has the power to impose trusteeships over locals and control their affairs, and because the constitution forbids locals to make rules which conflict with those of the International. However, this same argument was rejected in Childs. See 719 F.2d at 1382 n. 2. The features of the constitution pointed to by Herman are common in union constitutions and do not sufficiently evidence the type of inter-relationship between the day-to-day operations of the International and the local union required to meet the Childs standard. 31 Next, Herman argues that although the local union fails to meet the statutory definition of employer, it is nonetheless covered by the Acts because it meets the statutory definition of a labor organization. 5 The statutory definition for labor organization has no minimum number of employees requirement. 32 Although Herman's former employer may be subject in some respects to the provisions of the ADEA and the Nevada statutes because it qualifies as a labor organization, these statutes set out separate prohibitions applicable to labor organizations and to employers. If an entity falls within the statutory classification of employer, then it may be held liable for acts arising from its dealings with its employees. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 623(a). If an entity falls within the statutory classification of labor organization, then it is subject to the statutory provisions governing its relations with its membership, or with the employers with whom it bargains or has contracts. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 623(c). Although there are some statutory provisions that apply to both employers and labor organizations, the overall statutory schemes show that the classification of an entity will determine its basic legal responsibilities and areas of liability. This is not to say, of course, that an entity may not qualify as both a labor organization and an employer. A union that has a sufficient numbers of employees meets the statutory test for employer and is thus an employer as well as a labor organization. Such a union is subject to the strictures applicable to both forms of entities. 33 The entity that Herman is suing, like all labor unions, has dual functions. In some contexts it functions as an employer, while in others it functions as a collective bargaining representative. Here, Herman is challenging acts performed by the Carpenter's local in its role as employer. Thus, in order to invoke the statutory constraints imposed on employers, Herman must show that the local meets the statutory definition applicable to such entities. 34 Herman cites two EEOC decisions which found that the commission had jurisdiction over a union in its capacity as an employer because it met the statutory definition of labor organization, notwithstanding the fact that the union may have had too few employees to meet the statutory definition of employer. See EEOC Dec. No. 71-57, 3 F.E.P. 94 (July 17, 1970); EEOC Dec. No. 7-3-336-U, 1 F.E.P. 909 (June 18, 1969). However, in the twenty-five years since those decisions, no federal court has adopted that view. Moreover, such a position would be inconsistent with our prior holding in Childs. 35 In Childs, we affirmed a district court's decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant union because the union did not have a sufficient number of employees to meet the statutory definition of employer. Implicit in this holding is the conclusion that jurisdiction over the particular action could not be derived from some other provision of Title VII, i.e. the labor organization provision. We read Childs to hold that when a union is being sued in its capacity as an employer, it must meet the statutory definition of employer rather than some other statutory provision. To the extent that any facet of this conclusion is merely implicit in Childs, we now make it express. Indeed, later cases have cited Childs with approval for this proposition, and similar approaches have been adopted by two other circuits and other lower courts. See, e.g., Greenlees v. Eidenmuller Enter., 32 F.3d 197, 198-99 (5th Cir.1994) (citing Childs ) (In Title VII suit, capacity in which employment agency sued determines whether statutory definition of employer or employment agency applies); Chavero v. Local 241, Division of the Amalgamated Transit Union, 787 F.2d 1154, 1155 n. 1 (7th Cir.1986) (Under Title VII, when a plaintiff attempts to hold a union liable in its employer capacity, the union must meet the employer definition like any other employer). See also Schattman v. Texas Employment Comm'n, 459 F.2d 32, 37-38 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1107, 93 S.Ct. 901, 34 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973) (where state agency excluded from definition of employer, it is immaterial that the agency independently met definition of employment agency); Brennan v. Paragon Employment Agency, 356 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (employment agency); Shepherdson v. Local 401, 823 F.Supp. 1245 (E.D.Pa.1993) (citing Childs ) (union); Phelps v. Int'l Molders & Allied Workers, 25 Fair Empl.Prac.Case. (BNA) 1164, 1166, 1981 WL 192 (D.Minn.1981) (union). In the absence of any contravening authority, we continue to believe that Childs reached the correct conclusion. 36 The local that employed Herman is being sued in its capacity as an employer. It does not have the number of employees required to qualify under the statutory definitions of employer. Moreover, Herman has failed to demonstrate that the operations of the local union are sufficiently intertwined with those of the International union to warrant aggregating the number of employees of the two entities. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment on the ADEA and Nevada statutory claims.