Tewelde v. Albright

7 Citing cases

  1. Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of the Zam.

    299 F. Supp. 3d 160 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 13 times
    Rejecting plaintiff's contention that her requests for a salary increase constituted a protected activity

    See Def.'s Mem. at 16 n.3; Def.'s Reply at 6. While the "single employer" test was initially developed to determine if private corporations met the statutory employee requirement, courts have applied the test in cases involving governmental entities. SeeTewelde v. Albright , 89 F.Supp.2d 12, 16 n.7 (D.D.C. 2000) (applying the test to the United States State Department and the American Embassy Association, but concluding that the entities were not a single employer). Even courts that have questioned the test's applicability to governmental entities have observed that at least two of its factors, the "interrelation of operations and centralized control of labor relations," are relevant to the inquiry.

  2. Sears v. Magnolia Plumbing, Inc.

    778 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 10 times

    To determine whether two separate corporate entities can be considered a "single employer" for liability purposes, courts examine four factors: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations and personnel; and (4) common ownership or financial control. See Woodland v. Viacom, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2008); Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (D.D.C. 2000). "Although the absence or presence of any single factor is not conclusive, the control over the elements of labor relations is a central concern."

  3. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.

    No. 16-CV-708 (W.D.N.Y. May. 1, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "In reviewing the common management factor, the existence of interlocking officers and directors is particularly relevant." Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 18 (D.D.C. 2000). But even without allegations that the two entities had overlapping officers and directors, the inquiry ultimately "involves the degree of actual or active control, not formal job titles or potential control over day to day operations."

  4. Casole v. Johanns

    577 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a plaintiff who asserted only gender discrimination and retaliation in his administrative complaint had not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to a claim of discrimination based on national origin

    Plaintiff cites EEOC decisions in support of this argument, but "[i]t is well established that EEOC decision and precedents do not have controlling precedent in federal courts." Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 n. 4 (D.D.C. 2000). Although Plaintiff does not argue that he properly raised national origin discrimination in his EEOC complaint, the Court nevertheless also reviewed his 94-page, single-spaced EEOC complaint (inclusive of attachments) to determine whether Plaintiff made allegations concerning national origin such that the EEOC may have had notice of this claim.

  5. Washington v. Chao

    577 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Observing that the lack of evidence giving rise to an inference of racial discrimination was underscored by "Plaintiff's testimony indicating that he ascribes no racial motivations to [his supervisor's] conduct"

    "It is well established that EEOC decision and precedents do not have controlling precedent in federal courts." Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 n. 4 (D.D.C. 2000). Plaintiff also argues that the interrogatory answers provided by Ms. Dela Cerna support an inference of discrimination.

  6. Woodland v. Viacom, Inc.

    569 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Utilizing integrated enterprise doctrine to determine liability of parent company, which was the only entity sued, for acts of its subsidiary

    In order to determine whether two separate corporate entities can be considered a "single employer," courts examine four factors: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations and personnel; and (4) common ownership or financial control. See Hunter v. Ark Rest. Corp., 3 F. Supp 2d at 18 (using "single employer" test for DCHRA actions); see also Radio Television Broad. Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broad. Serv. of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965) (Supreme Court endorsed the "single employer" test for Title VII cases); Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (D.D.C. 2000). "Although the absence or presence of any single factor is not conclusive, the control over the elements of labor relations is a central concern."

  7. Dean v. American Fed. of Gov. Employees

    509 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Finding union officers not employees where they did not receive compensation from the union

    With respect to the second factor — common management — "the existence of interlocking officers and directors is particularly relevant." Tewelde v. Albright, 89 F. Supp. 2d 12, 18 (D.D.C. 2000). Here, Plaintiff erroneous asserts that Mr. Eitches is "a regional vice president and executive board member of AFGE's bargaining council," Pl.'s Opp'n at 15, when, as discussed above, he in fact holds those positions on HUD Council 222.