Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided September 2, 2011No. 10-3055Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit

Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that a remand is necessary because, on the factual record of this case, the question of remuneration cannot be decided as a matter of law. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that, when evaluating whether an individual is an “employee” for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the court must weigh remuneration as merely one factor under the common-law agency test set forth in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-24, 112…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. DardenSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. ReidSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. National Labor Relations Board v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Bridget O'COnnOr v. James Davis, Dr., Rockland Psychiatric Center, and State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
  5. Victoria Pietras v. Board of Fire Commissioners of the Farmingville Fire DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API