Monte J. Hukill v. Auto Care, Incorporated McGillicuddy & Associates William McGillicuddy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that factors not met where common owner had no involvement in personnel matters
• finding as insignificant the fact that subsidiary purchased administrative services from parent as compared with the evidence that each company otherwise operates distinctly
• finding no centralized control of labor relations when the company had “no power to hire, fire, or supervise employees” at the allegedly related companies
• collecting cases; noting that the doctrine was adopted for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and later applied to other statutes
• rejecting an integrated-employer claim even though one individual was the majority shareholder of all eight of the affiliated companies at issue
• “Under the ‘integrated employer’ test, several companies may be considered so interrelated that they constitute a single employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).