Lopez v. Massachusetts

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, plaintiffs were not employees where the entity they worked for had “no control over plaintiffs’ day-to-day job performance”
• holding that “Title VII claim depends on the [defendant] being the ‘employer’ of the [plaintiff] officers”
• explaining that the fact that plaintiffs “do not work on [company’s] premises” is a factor favoring independent - contractor status
• nothing in Massachusetts civil service law, G. L. c. 31, mandates that municipalities use results of division’s promotional examination as sole criterion to evaluate merit-based promotions
• exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction because whether the state agency involved was an \employer\ within the meaning of Title VII \was both determinative and factually and legally entwined with the Eleventh Amendment question\
• declining to adopt indirect employer interference theory for Title VII claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).