Marilyn Wheeler v. Main Hurdman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the FLSA “exclude[es] bona fide general partners from coverage” after exhaustively canvassing “the statute [and its analogues], the legislative history, agency position, and the applicable cases” (cleaned up)
• holding partners are not \employees\ under Title VII, but distinguishing the case where an employee might be made a partner as \a sham\ to enable subsequent discrimination
• holding partners are not “employees” under Title VII, but distinguishing the case where an employee might be made a partner as “a sham” to enable subsequent discrimination
• noting that the definitions of “employee” in Title VII and the ADEA are “virtually identical”
• stating that “the determination of whether [the plaintiff] qualifies as an employee under the federal discrimination statutes is both a jurisdictional question and an aspect of the substantive claim in her discrimination action”
• discussing elements to be considered under common law and “economic realities” test in determining whether employer/employee relationship exists for Title VII purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).