Myers v. Garfield & Johnson Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Nesbit addresses “the specific situation in which a plaintiff seeks to evade Title VIPs minimum size requirements by ‘consolidating’ a defendant with an affiliated entity, thus allowing the employees of both entities to count toward the statutory minimum”
• extending liability to a franchisor who administered detailed policies, compliance manuals, and extensive training procedures to its franchisee
• refusing to consider “documents outside the complaint in the context of a motion to dismiss”
• denying motion to dismiss joint employer claims while recognizing “the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims” (internal citations omitted)
• in Title VII case in which defendant disputed that it employed plaintiff, rejecting consideration of tax and other forms prepared in connection with plaintiff’s employment that were attached to motion to dismiss
• in Title VII case in which defendant disputed that it employed plaintiff, rejecting consideration of tax and other forms prepared in connection with plaintiff’s employment that were attached to motion to dismiss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).