Search form

Foreign Parent Company is Joint Employer with Subsidiary for Employment Claims, Court Rules

By Steven D. Baderian, John L. Sander and Maya Atrakchi
  • February 23, 2018

A foreign parent company can be held jointly liable for employment claims against its U.S. subsidiary, a federal district court has held. Middlebrooks v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-00412 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018).

The employee brought claims against his former employer, Teva USA, and its parent company, Teva Israel, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The court found that the Israeli parent company “exercises significant control” over their U.S.-based subsidiary’s employees such that it qualifies as a joint employer.

Background

The plaintiff, Stephen Middlebrooks, was hired in 2001 by Teva USA to be the Director of Facilities Engineering at its Pennsylvania location. In 2013, Middlebrooks was promoted to the position of Senior Director of North American Facilities Management, overseeing 70 employees. Shortly thereafter, Middlebrooks began reporting to a supervisor based in Israel, at Teva’s global headquarters, and he worked closely with the Israel-based team, although remaining in his position at the Pennsylvania location.

In February 2016, the Israel-based supervisor terminated Middlebrooks due to performance issues. Middlebrooks then filed suit, alleging that the Teva Israel supervisor and team discriminated against him because of his age and national origin.

Court Analysis

The mere existence of a parent company does not mean the company is subject to liability for employment claims against its subsidiary. In fact, “there is a strong presumption that a parent company is not the employer of a subsidiary’s employees.” Brown v. Fred’s Inc., 494 F. 3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2007).

The federal district court in Middlebrooks noted that Teva Israel, a foreign corporation, is not controlled by a U.S. entity. Therefore, it could be considered the plaintiff’s employer only if the single or joint employer exception applied.

The court ruled out the single employer exception because it found Teva Israel and Teva USA are not “operationally or financially entangled” enough for the exception to apply. The two entities maintain separate corporate forms, hold separate board meetings, keep separate books and records, and have separate headquarters. These details, the court said, indicate a traditional parent-subsidiary relationship, and do not establish a separate, single employer entity.

With respect to the “joint employer” exception, however, the court found that Teva Israel exercises “significant control” over the employees of Teva USA, such that the Israeli company qualifies as a joint employer.

Courts consider various factors when assessing whether there is a joint employer relationship, including:

  • Authority to hire and fire employees, promulgate work rules and assignments, and set conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits, and hours
  • Day-to-day supervision of employees, including employee discipline
  • Control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes, and so on

In Middlebrooks, the plaintiff was directly supervised and disciplined by a Teva Israel employee. The Teva Israel employee had the authority to terminate the plaintiff, and he exercised that authority. Although Teva Israel did not pay the plaintiff’s salary, the court emphasized that no one factor of the “joint employer” test was determinative.

Takeaway

The court’s decision is an important reminder to parent companies, both foreign and U.S.-based, that if they exercise “significant control” over their subsidiary’s employees, they can qualify as a “joint employer.”

Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss this case.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire Prohibits Gender Identity Discrimination

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire became the 20th state in the country to prohibit discrimination of all forms based upon gender identity when Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1319 into law on June 8, 2018. The law goes into effect on July 8, 2018. House Bill 1319 adds “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the New Hampshire Law... Read More

June 8, 2018

New Jersey Closer to Bar on Jury Waivers, Arbitration Agreements, Secrecy of Harassment Settlements

June 8, 2018

The New Jersey Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit jury waivers and agreements that conceal the details of discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD). The bill, which passed by a vote of 34-1, also would call into question the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate... Read More

June 7, 2018

Employment-at-Will Comes to Puerto Rico?

June 7, 2018

Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board and Governor Ricardo Rosselló have sent bills to the Puerto Rico legislature to repeal the Unjust Dismissal Act, Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976 (Act 80). If either bill is enacted, employers in Puerto Rico will no longer be required to have “just cause” to dismiss employees hired for an... Read More