Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Sanford v. Main St. Baptist Church Manor, Inc.

Sanford v. Main St. Baptist Church Manor, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

December 5, 2011, Filed

File Name: 11a0810n.06

No. 10-5323

Opinion

 [*489]  KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant William Sanford appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Main Street Baptist Church Manor, Inc. ("the Manor") and Southeastern Management Center, Inc. ("Southeastern") on his sexual-harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act ("KCRA"). The district court held that neither defendant qualified as an "employer" under the federal or state anti-discrimination laws—Southeastern because it was not Sanford's formal employer and the Manor because it did not have the statutorily required number of employees. Because the district court abused its  [**2] discretion in reversing its earlier holding that Southeastern could be liable as a joint employer, we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Southeastern and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because Sanford has failed to show that the Manor satisfies the numerosity requirement, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment to the Manor.

I. BACKGROUND

William Sanford worked maintenance at the Main Street Baptist Church Manor Apartments, a 64-unit apartment building operated by the Manor in Lexington, Kentucky, from 2000 to 2005. He alleges that he was the victim of sexual harassment by his supervisor, Marla Carter, in the spring of 2004. Sanford contends that Carter made a series of sexual advances and, when he rebuffed these advances and reported the alleged harassment, began issuing write-ups and negative reports regarding his job performance. The Manor fired Carter in 2004 and, in 2005, Sanford resigned after his job duties and salary were reduced.

Sanford brought suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and the KCRA, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 344.040, against the Manor and Southeastern, a property-management company that works with several housing providers in central  [**3] Kentucky. Both defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not qualify as  [*490]  Sanford's or Carter's employer for Title VII or KCRA purposes.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

449 Fed. Appx. 488 *; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24119 **; 2011 FED App. 0810N (6th Cir.); 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 123

WILLIAM SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH MANOR, INC. and SOUTHEASTERN MANAGEMENT CENTER, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

Notice: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28 LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28 BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.

Prior History:  [**1] ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

Sanford v. Main St. Baptist Church Manor, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108929 (E.D. Ky., Nov. 20, 2009)

Disposition: REVERSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

CORE TERMS

employees, numerosity, district court, joint employer, entity, aggregate, grant of summary judgment, single-employer, joint-employer, argues, single employer, retaliation, payroll, summary judgment, serves

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Labor & Employment Law, Title VII Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Employees & Independent Contractors, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Employers, Remands, Appealability, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review