Are you employed through a staffing agency?
Do you have an employment discrimination case against the company where the
staffing agency placed you? Companies love to dodge responsibility by saying
that workers hired through staffing agencies aren’t employees. But they’re
likely wrong.
In the recently issued case of Jimenez v. U.S. Cont'l Mktg., Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 189,
197-98, the California Court of Appeals reminded companies that the “general
principle—that an individual may be held to have more than one employer in the
temporary-staffing context—has ‘long been recognized for the purposes of
applying state and federal antidiscrimination laws.’” (quoting Bradley v.
Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1612, 1626).
Jimenez brought several claims
under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, which prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
in the workplace) against both a staffing agency (Ameritemps) and her contracting
employer (USCM). To determine whether the contracting employer was indeed
Jimenez’s employer, the court held that “factors under the contractual control
of the temporary-staffing agency (such as hiring, payment, benefits, and
timesheets being handled by a temporary-staffing agency) are not given any
weight in determining the employment relationship with respect to the
contracting employer.” Jimenez, 41 Cal.App. at 193. In other words, the
factors used to determine whether a staffing agency is someone’s employer are
different from the factors used to determine whether a contracting employer is
someone’s employer. Just because a staffing company oversees hiring, payment,
benefits, and time-tracking does not mean the contracting employer is off the hook.
Why
are the factors different? The factors that make a staffing agency someone’s
employer are “outside the scope of the terms and conditions of the temporary
employee’s employment with the contracting employer.” Jimenez, 41
Cal.App. at 193. Liability for harassment or discrimination under FEHA is
“‘predicated” on allegations “‘involving the terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment under the control of the
employer[.]’” Id. (quoting Bradley v. Department of Corrections
& Rehab. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1629).
What matters when determining whether a
contracting employer is responsible for alleged violations of FEHA is whether
the employer exercised “direction and control” over the employee. Jimenez, 41 Cal.App. at
197. Examples of direction and control are whether the employee must obey
instructions from the employer and whether the employer can fire the employee
at any time. Id. Other examples the court cited were the fact that (1)
Jimenez reported to an USCM employee; (2) she supervised both employees hired
by USCM and employees hired through staffing agencies; (3) she was subject to
USCM’s employee handbook; (4) she participated in company trainings and was
able to use USCM’s clinic for on-the-job injuries; (5) she was subject to
USCM’s disciplinary policies; and (6) USCM employees supervised and train (and
are supervised and trained by) employees hired through staffing agencies. Id.
at 199-200.
While the
court declined to adopt a bright-line rule that every worker placed through a
staffing agency is an employee of the contracting company, it did make clear
that companies can’t dodge responsibility for discrimination and harassment
that happens under their watch simply by pointing out that staffing agencies
are responsible for the things staffing agencies are normally responsible for,
namely hiring, payment, benefits, and time-tracking. A company will need to
show that it did not exercise direction and control over the employee. This is
a win for employees and a win for FEHA, whose purpose is “to protect and
safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek and hold employment
free from discrimination.” Id. at 71-72.
Bryan Schwartz Law has written
about FEHA
before. If you believe you are being discriminated against in the workplace and
were hired through a staffing agency, contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.
No comments:
Post a Comment