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

Heading: The inquiry under Darden

Text: “‘In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Darden, 503 U.S. at 323 (quoting Reid, 490 U.S. at 751). Darden provides a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors, including “the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired 5 The Fourth Circuit recently adopted a “hybrid test” for joint employment in the Title VII context that incorporates both the common law of agency and the “economic realities test” used in FLSA cases. See Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 413-14 (4th Cir. 2015). This test is very similar to the Darden test, however, and we see no reason to apply it instead of Darden. 12 party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.” Id. at 323-24 (quoting Reid, 490 U.S. at 751-52). Our Court has generally focused on “‘which entity paid [the employees’] salaries, hired and fired them, and had control over their daily employment activities.’” Covington, 710 F.3d at 119 (alteration in original) (quoting Covington v. Int’l Ass’n of Approved Basketball Officials, No. 08-3639, 2010 WL 3404977, at  (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2010)). However, “[s]ince the common-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.’” Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (second alteration in original) (quoting N.L.R.B. v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254, 258 (1968)).6 6 As mentioned above, the Enterprise test is extremely similar to the Darden test. It considers 1) the alleged employer’s authority to hire and fire the relevant employees; 2) the alleged employer’s authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and to set the employees’ conditions of employment: compensation, benefits, and work schedules, including the rate and method of payment; 3) the alleged 13 The Darden factors assist in “drawing a line between independent contractors and employees” hired by a given entity. Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 445 n.5 (2003). Significantly, the inquiry under Darden is not which of two entities should be considered the employer of the person in question. Two entities may be “coemployers” or “joint employers” of one employee for purposes of Title VII. Graves v. Lowery, 117 F.3d 723, 727 (3d Cir. 1997). Indeed, at common law, one could be a “dual servant acting for two masters simultaneously” or a “borrowed servant” who by virtue of being “‘directed or permitted by his master to perform services for another may become the servant of such other.’” Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1349 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 227 (1958)).