## Facts

- Brenda Butler was hired and paid by a temporary-staffing agency (ResourceMFG) and assigned to work at Drive Automotive’s factory in South Carolina.
- ResourceMFG provided Butler’s uniform, handled payroll, maintained separate parking for its workers, and retained formal authority over discipline and termination.
- Drive set Butler’s work schedule, arranged training, supervised her day-to-day work on the factory floor through Drive supervisors, and directed her tasks.
- Butler testified she was told she worked for both Drive and ResourceMFG.
- Butler alleged a Drive supervisor repeatedly made sexually explicit comments about her body and that she reported the conduct to both ResourceMFG and Drive, but no action was taken.
- After Butler later reported another incident, Drive asked ResourceMFG to end Butler’s assignment, and ResourceMFG terminated her employment.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII permits joint-employer liability such that more than one entity may simultaneously qualify as a worker’s “employer.”
2. What test governs joint-employer status under Title VII in the Fourth Circuit.
3. Whether Drive qualified as Butler’s employer (at least jointly with ResourceMFG) such that it could face Title VII liability.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held Title VII permits joint-employer liability.
- The court adopted a hybrid test combining common-law agency control principles with economic-realities considerations.
- Applying that framework, the court concluded Drive was Butler’s employer for Title VII purposes based on its substantial control over her work and conditions of employment.
- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Drive and remanded for further proceedings on Butler’s Title VII claims.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII may treat multiple entities as an employee’s “employer” when they share or allocate control over the employment relationship.
- Joint-employer status is determined by a hybrid analysis that weighs: (a) the right to control the manner and means of the work (agency principles) and (b) practical economic features of the relationship (economic realities).
- Formal indicia (such as who issues paychecks or provides uniforms) are not dispositive; actual control over schedule, training, supervision, and continued assignment can establish employer status.
- A staffing-agency arrangement does not, by itself, insulate the host company from Title VII liability where the host exercises meaningful workplace control, including influence over a worker’s removal or termination.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit recognized joint-employer liability under Title VII and held that a host company using temporary workers may be an employer when it exercises substantial control over the worker’s day-to-day employment, reversing summary judgment and sending the case back for merits adjudication.


Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015)