## Facts

- Verne Wilson, a male licensed private duty nurse in the District of Columbia, sought private nursing assignments for hospital patients through registries used by Sibley Memorial Hospital.
- Sibley’s Nursing Office relayed patient requests to registries, which matched requests with available nurses and directed the nurse to report to the patient’s room.
- Patients were told that neither the hospital nor the registry could discriminate based on race, age, or sex, and that if a nurse was unacceptable on arrival, the patient still had to pay the nurse for a full day.
- Wilson alleged that on two occasions in 1968 and 1969, Sibley supervisory nurses rejected him because he was male and the requesting patients were female, and prevented him from reporting to the patient.
- Wilson also alleged he was never allowed to attend female patients at Sibley, while female nurses attended male patients.
- After complaints to local and federal agencies, the EEOC found reasonable cause, conciliation failed, and Wilson received a right-to-sue letter.
- Wilson sued under Title VII seeking injunctive relief and damages; Sibley argued it was not Wilson’s employer and therefore not subject to Title VII liability.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII permits a claim against an entity that is not the plaintiff’s direct employer when the entity allegedly discriminates by interfering with the plaintiff’s access to employment opportunities it can control.
2. Whether the district court properly entered sua sponte summary judgment for Wilson despite unresolved factual disputes about Sibley’s conduct and reasons.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that, on the complaint’s allegations, the action was maintainable under Title VII because the statute may reach discriminatory interference with employment opportunities by an entity controlling access to work, even absent a traditional employer–employee relationship.
- The court reversed the district court’s sua sponte summary judgment because Sibley’s liability depended on material factual disputes requiring trial.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII is not limited to conventional employer–employee relationships when an entity’s conduct can materially affect an individual’s employment opportunities.
- A nonemployer may be subject to Title VII where it exercises significant control over access to work and allegedly uses that control in a discriminatory manner.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record shows genuine disputes of material fact concerning discriminatory conduct, causation, or nondiscriminatory explanations.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that Title VII can apply to a hospital that allegedly used its control over patient access to block a private duty nurse’s job opportunities based on sex, but it required fact-finding at trial before imposing liability.


Sibley Mem'l Hosp. v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338 (D.C. Cir. 1973)