Matthew Faush v. Tuesday Morning

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that although the employee-plaintiff was not paid by the alleged co-employer entity, the fact that employee-plaintiff worked under the direct supervision and control of the co-employer who gave instructions on the details of the work, sufficiently demonstrates co- employment status
• sympathizing with district judge who “understandably relied” on three non-precedential opinions before reversing him, noting the their non-binding status
• sympathizing with district judge who “understandably relied” on three non-precedential opinions before reversing him, noting the their non-binding status
• sympathizing with district judge who “understandably relied” on three non-precedential opinions before reversing him, noting their non-binding status
• sympathizing with district judge who “understandably relied” on three non-precedential opinions before reversing him, noting their non-binding status
• stating, “it is clear that the Darden test applies to Title VII cases”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).