Brown v. Daikin America Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiff plausibly alleged that employees were similarly situated where comparator employees worked in rotational roles and were normally employed by parent company
• concluding that the “single employer doctrine” was applicable where plaintiff alleged that the parent company “closely directed the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary” and required approval “as to all significant actions taken” by the subsidiary
• stating that “centralized control over labor relations” is “the most important prong in the four- part test”
• finding that no one factor is determinative, but control of labor relations is the central concern
• noting that “[t]he NYSHRL mirrors [Title VII’s] federal obligations” and thus analyzing NYSHRL claims “in tandem” with those brought under Title VII
• finding allegations that parent company had to approve all significant decisions were sufficient to plausibly allege “control” by the parent company

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).