## Facts

- Rodney Faush, an African-American worker, was placed at a Tuesday Morning retail store through a temporary staffing agency.
- The staffing agency was the employer of record, maintained the formal employment relationship, and issued Faush’s paychecks.
- At the store, Tuesday Morning supervisors directed Faush’s day-to-day tasks, schedule, and work performance on site.
- Tuesday Morning provided the workplace and the tools/materials used for the retail work.
- Tuesday Morning could request that Faush be removed from the store, effectively ending his assignment there.
- The staffing arrangement involved Tuesday Morning paying the agency on an hourly basis tied to the hours worked by assigned workers, with the agency charging a markup.
- Faush alleged he was subjected to race discrimination and removed from the assignment because of race, asserting claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The district court granted Tuesday Morning summary judgment, concluding it was not Faush’s employer as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether, applying common-law agency factors, a reasonable jury could find that Tuesday Morning was Faush’s “employer” or “joint employer” for Title VII and § 1981 purposes despite the staffing agency’s formal employment role.
2. Whether the employer/joint-employer inquiry presented genuine disputes of material fact that made summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that, on the summary-judgment record, a reasonable jury could conclude Tuesday Morning was Faush’s joint employer.
- The court did not decide that Tuesday Morning was an employer as a matter of law; it held only that the issue was for a factfinder given the evidence of control and working conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s circular statutory definition of “employee” is interpreted using common-law agency principles focused on the right to control the manner and means of work.
- The joint-employer analysis is fact-intensive, considers multiple non-dispositive factors, and often cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material facts about control are disputed.
- Evidence supporting joint-employer status can include: on-site supervision of daily tasks and schedule; provision of the workplace and tools; functional integration into the host’s operations; and the host’s power to end an assignment by requesting removal.
- The formal source of wages and contractual labels in staffing agreements are relevant but not controlling when the practical working relationship shows host-company control over key terms and conditions.
- A host company using staffing-agency labor can be subject to Title VII and § 1981 liability if it qualifies as an employer or joint employer under common-law factors.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the evidence of Tuesday Morning’s on-site supervision and control over Faush’s assignment could permit a jury to find a joint-employer relationship, requiring reversal of summary judgment and further proceedings on Faush’s race-discrimination claims.


Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., 808 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2015)