Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the second factor favored joint employment where “[defendant’s] employees supervised both” workers employed by the plaintiff and other sets of workers”
• holding a manufacturer was a plaintiff’s joint employer as a matter of law even though he was technically employed by a staffing company
• emphasizing that “the consideration of factors must relate to the particular relationship under consideration” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• emphasizing that “the consideration of factors must relate to the particular relationship under consideration” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “control remains the principal guidepost for determining whether multiple entities can be a plaintiff’s joint employers”
• noting that the purpose of the hybrid test is to pierce the formalities of determining an employment relationship while not discounting those formalities entirely

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).