On May 18, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a terminated employee for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Harris v. Allen County Board of Commissioners, No. 17-2577 (7th Cir. 5/18/2018). The question in this case was whether the defendant was the plaintiff’s employer for purposes of ADA liability. The ADA makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in the terms and conditions of a qualified individual’s employment on the basis of a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a disability within the meaning of the ADA, and requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals’ disabilities. In order to establish an ADA claim, the plaintiff was required, but failed to establish that the defendant was his employer.
The plaintiff conceded that a separate governmental entity was his direct employer, but argued that the defendant should be considered his indirect employer. Under certain limited circumstances, a plaintiff may bring an employment discrimination claim against a defendant who is not their direct employer. In order to ascertain whether a defendant may be held liable for employment discrimination as an indirect employer, courts consider the degree of control that the putative employer exercised over the plaintiff as well as the economic realities of the relationship. The critical question is whether the putative employer exercised sufficient control over the plaintiff. An employer-employee relationship is likely to exist if an employer has the right to control and direct the work of the individual. Generally speaking, the key control powers are hiring and firing, but an employer’s control over other aspects of the employment relationship may also be relevant to the extent that the control is related to the subject of the plaintiff’s claim. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant sufficiently controlled his employment and, therefore, the defendant was not his employer for purposes of his ADA lawsuit. The control of the plaintiff’s hiring, firing, day-to-day job duties, and salary was specifically delegated to the other governmental entity by statute.