## Facts

- Two Washington fruit growers, Green Acre Farms, Inc. and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (the Growers), contracted with Global Horizons, Inc., a labor contractor, to obtain seasonal agricultural labor.
- With the Growers’ approval, Global Horizons recruited Thai workers and brought them to the United States under the H-2A guest worker program.
- The EEOC investigated charges by Thai workers and sued under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin affecting working conditions and employer-provided or employer-connected benefits.
- The allegations included substandard housing, inadequate food, unsafe transportation, and other coercive or harsh treatment aimed at Thai workers.
- Global Horizons became insolvent, stopped defending, and a default judgment was entered against it; the litigation continued as to the Growers’ potential Title VII liability.
- The district court, on Rule 12(b)(6) motions, treated the Growers as plausibly joint employers only for “orchard-related” supervision and discipline, but dismissed claims tied to “non-orchard-related” matters (housing, food, transportation, and pay) on the ground that Global Horizons controlled those areas.

## Issues

1. What legal test governs joint-employer status under Title VII: the common-law agency test or an economic-reality test?
2. Under the proper test, did the complaint plausibly allege that the Growers and Global Horizons were joint employers with respect to both worksite supervision and off-worksite conditions connected to employment (housing, food, transportation, and pay)?
3. If joint employment was plausibly alleged, did the EEOC state a claim that the Growers could be liable under Title VII for discriminatory acts affecting the Thai workers’ compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including conduct carried out by Global Horizons?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit adopted the common-law agency test to determine joint-employer status under Title VII and rejected the economic-reality test in this context.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged the Growers were joint employers with respect to both orchard-related matters and non-orchard-related matters tied to the employment relationship.
- The court held the EEOC plausibly alleged Title VII liability against each Grower for discriminatory conduct affecting employment terms and conditions, including employer-connected housing and transportation.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the non-orchard-related Title VII claims against the Growers and remanded for further proceedings; the default judgment against Global Horizons remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII liability attaches to an “employer,” and joint-employer status can satisfy that threshold where two entities share or allocate employer functions.
- Joint-employer status under Title VII is determined by the common-law agency framework, with the right to control the manner and means of work as the primary consideration, assessed alongside other common-law factors.
- A court may not categorically exclude employer-provided or employer-connected housing, transportation, food, or pay from the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” when those benefits are sufficiently linked to the employment relationship.
- Contractual delegation of responsibilities to a labor contractor does not, by itself, foreclose joint-employer status or Title VII liability when the putative employer retains or exercises relevant control or responsibility.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Title VII joint-employer status is governed by the common-law agency test and that, at the pleading stage, agricultural growers using H-2A workers can be treated as joint employers for discrimination claims tied not only to worksite supervision but also to housing, transportation, and other employment-related conditions, warranting reversal of the dismissal and remand.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Glob. Horizons, Inc., 915 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2019)