Court Opinion

ID: 9470882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:18:51.825439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:09.366956
License: Public Domain

SILER,
District Judge, concurring.
I concur with the ultimate result of this decision, but I respectfully dissent from the part discussing manufacturer’s representatives.
I agree with the majority opinion that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of subject matter jurisdiction sufficient to preclude dismissal before trial. See First National Bank of Louisville v. J.W. Brewer Tire Co., 680 F.2d 1123 (6th Cir.1982); Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 1517, 67 L.Ed.2d 816 (1981). However, the district court may be able to resolve that issue by a separate jurisdictional hearing before a trial on the merits.
On the question of determining whether a parent corporation and its subsidiary should be a single employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the district court followed the correct law. Admittedly, for this circuit, it only had the benefit of the decision in Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 432 (W.D.Tenn. 1971), aff’d, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972), but it also followed the criteria set out in Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F.2d 389 (8th Cir.1977), as urged by the majority opinion here.
However, the district court’s determination that the manufacturer’s representatives are not to be considered employees should not be disturbed. I agree with the majority opinion that the determination of whether one is an employee under Title VII is a question of federal, not state, law. Nevertheless, even though the district court mentioned that under Michigan law the test would be same as under common law, it followed federal law as articulated in Smith v. Dutra Trucking Co., 410 F.Supp. 513 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff’d mem., 580 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir.1978).
In taking this approach, the district court had before it sufficient facts set out in the affidavits to determine whether these manufacturer’s representatives were employees. It found that they were independent contractors who worked only on a commission basis and were not controlled by Syntax. By affidavit, Syntax listed its employees for the dates in question. This was not refuted by affidavits by the plaintiff; she only countered it by an affidavit from William Clare who said that the company paid commissions to manufacturer’s representatives. He did not say that these representatives were employees.
*1343Moreover, the district court followed the correct definition of “employee.” Obviously, as the majority opinion declares, Title VII defines “employee” as one “employed by an employer.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). However, I would not adopt the broader “economic realities” test urged by the majority opinion. Instead, the common law concept of “employee” should be used. I agree with the decision in Cobb v. Sun Papers, Inc., 673 F.2d 337 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 163, 74 L.Ed.2d 135 (1982), that there is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that “employee” is to be given the broadest definition possible, as has been done under the Fair Labor Standards Act.1 This is not to disagree with the learned majority opinion here on policy, as that is up to Congress.' Instead, when that body has not spoken, then we should fall back to the common law concept term of “employee” and leave it up to Congress to make the correction, if one is to be made. In doing this, one still must consider the “economic realities of the relationship viewed in light of the common law principles of agency and the right of the employer to control the employee.” Id. at 341. That seems to be the same approach taken by Lutcher v. Musicians Union Local 47, 633 F.2d 880 (9th Cir.1980); Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C.Cir.1979); and Smith v. Dutra Trucking Co., supra.
Finally, although I disagree with the broader definition of “employee” as adopted by the majority opinion, the distinction between the “economic realities” and the “common law” tests will not be a factor in most Title VII cases.

. According to Hishon v. King & Spalding, 678 F.2d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 1982), there was only one remark made about this definition in the Congress, when Senator Clark said “employer” was “intended to have its common dictionary meaning, except as expressly qualified by the Act,” citing 110 Cong.Rec. 7216 (Apr. 8, 1964).