First, the integrated enterprise test βis relevant when a plaintiff alleges that her direct employer has committed discriminatory conduct but the direct employer cannot be held liable under Title VII because it has fewer than fifteen employees.β DaOro v. Eskaton, No. 2:11-CV-0960-KJM-JFM, 2013 WL 789120, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013); see also Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., No. CV 11-1596-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 1344729, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (β[W]hen there is no dispute that at least one defendant qualifies as an employer under Title VII, the integrated enterprise test is wholly inapplicable.β)
The first school of thought requires joinder of a married plaintiff's spouse in order for a defendant to enforce an attorney fee award against the marital community. See, e.g., Weimer v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 184 F.R.D. 309, 310-11 (D. Ariz. 1998); Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., No. CV 11-1596-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 1344729 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012). These cases rely on Spudnuts, Inc. v. Lane, 676 P.2d 669, 670 (Ariz. App. 1984), which applied A.R.S. Β§ 25-215(C) to bar an unmarried plaintiff from enforcing a judgment against a married defendant whose spouse was not joined in the action.
Nevertheless, both the Ninth Circuit and district courts continue to cite Pacific Maritime as persuasive authority in Title VII cases. See, e.g., Ford-Torres v. Cascade Valley Telecom, 374 F. App'x 698, 700 (9th Cir. 2010) (Mem.); Morsovillo v. Clark Cty., 136 F. App'x 17 (9th Cir. 2005) (Mem.); Bowling v. Diamond Resorts Int'l, Inc., 2018 WL 3244068, at *7 (D. Haw. July 3, 2018); Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., 2012 WL 1344729, at *5 n.6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (collecting cases). Here, there is no dispute that (1) Trane decided whether to accept Plaintiff for the warehouse position, (2) Trane established Plaintiff's daily working conditions and directed to whom he reported, (3) Plaintiff reported to Trane's warehouse, (4) Trane determined the duration and extent of Plaintiff's assignments, (5) Plaintiff took instruction from Trane employees, and (6) Trane made the decision to terminate Plaintiff's assignment. Defs.' CSF ΒΆΒΆ 6, 10; Pl.'s Dep. at 170, 180-82, 187-89, 224, Ex. 7 Answers to Admissions at 32.
Id. "But, when there is no dispute that at least one defendant qualifies as an employer under Title VII, the integrated enterprise test is inapplicable." Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., No. CV 11-1596-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 1344729, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012). Here, DaOro alleges that SPS is liable under Title VII for discriminatory conduct that occurred while EPI was her direct employer.
The appropriate test for determining whether Garcia is also an employee of WCI is the joint-employer test, or the "economic realities" test. See Murray v. Principal Fin. Group, Inc., 613 F.3d 943, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Drottz v. Park Electrochemical Corp., 2012 WL 1344729 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012). The following factors, among others, may be relevant here: (1) whether WCI had the power to hire and fire employees; (2) whether WCI supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) whether WCI determined the rate and method of payment; (4) whether WCI maintained employment records; (5) whether WCI had the power to discipline employees; and (6) whether WCI supervised employees' worksites.