William Stephens v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employee of subsidiary’s participation in parent’s 401(k) plan was evidence of centralized control of labor relations
• recognizing the parallel standards for punitive damages under the ADA and the MHRA
• stating that “[p]unitive damages, unlike compensatory damages, are not aimed at making a plaintiff whole; thus the rule against double recovery is inapplicable when the damages awarded are punitive” (quoting Medina v. D.C., 643 F.3d 323, 329 (D.C. Cir. 2011))
• finding sufficient interrelationship where entities shared employees and corporate documents, employees used common email addresses, and the parent provided payroll, corporate, and legal services for the subsidiary
• describing the distinction between joint employer and single integrated employer theories of liability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).