## Facts

- Sandy Cuddeback was a female graduate student in pharmacology at the University of South Florida (USF) conducting cancer research in Dr. Hong Gang Wang’s laboratory.
- USF supplied equipment and training; her laboratory work also served dissertation and program publishing requirements.
- She received a stipend and employment-type benefits, including sick and annual leave; her relationship with the University was governed by a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement.
- Her first-year stipend was funded by the department with a tuition waiver; later funding came from Dr. Wang’s research grant.
- Dr. Wang supervised and evaluated her performance; she received high ratings in several evaluations through October 1999.
- The relationship deteriorated in late 1999, and Dr. Wang documented concerns about attendance, laboratory notebooks, communication, and conduct.
- In a March 10, 2000 evaluation, Dr. Wang cited multiple performance and conduct problems, including failure to follow instructions, unstable productivity, argumentative behavior, disrespect to colleagues, and lack of focus.
- Cuddeback alleged she was terminated from her laboratory position because of sex discrimination; the University asserted she was terminated for performance-related reasons.

## Issues

1. Whether a graduate student who receives a stipend and benefits and works under significant institutional control qualifies as an “employee” under Title VII.
2. Whether, assuming employee status and a prima facie case, the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that the University’s stated performance reasons were a pretext for sex discrimination.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held that Cuddeback qualified as an “employee” for Title VII purposes under a hybrid economic-realities and common-law control analysis.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the University because it articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination and Cuddeback failed to raise a genuine issue that those reasons were pretextual.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII “employee” status is assessed under a hybrid test that considers both economic realities (compensation and benefits) and the putative employer’s right of control (supervision and evaluation).
- A relationship may have academic components yet still constitute employment when the economic and control factors indicate an employment relationship.
- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once an employer provides legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for an adverse action, the plaintiff must show those reasons are pretext and that discrimination was the real motive.
- Prior positive evaluations do not, without more, establish pretext when the employer presents evidence of later performance problems.
- Comparator evidence must involve similarly situated individuals; failure to identify appropriate comparators weakens a pretext showing.

## Conclusion

The court treated a stipend-supported, supervised graduate researcher as a Title VII employee, but affirmed summary judgment because the University’s documented performance concerns were not shown to be a cover for sex discrimination.


Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2004)