“Super Tonic” and the “Single Employer” Test
By When paramedic Willard Bohannon, the plaintiff in a recent case from the Western District of Tennessee, was asked by his supervisor at Baptist Memorial Hospital-Tipton (Baptist-Tipton) whether he was keeping “super-tonic” in his locker, he admitted that he was. See Bohannon v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Tipton, et al., 2010 WL 1856547 (W.D. Tenn. May 7, 2010). Baptist-Tipton promptly had the “super tonic” tested and discovered that it consisted of one part garlic, onion, cayenne pepper, ginger, horseradish, apple cider vinegar, and 2 parts vodka. Mr. Bohannon was subsequently terminated for possessing alcohol on the premises in violation of Baptist-Tipton’s fitness for Duty Policy.
Following his termination, Mr. Bohannon sued both Baptist-Tipton, and its parent company, Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation (BMHCC), for age discrimination. BMHCC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was not Bohannon’s employer. The motion turned on whether BMHCC and Baptist-Tipton were so integrated as to constitute a single employer.
Using the “single employer” test, the Court determined that the two entities were indeed a single employer, considering the following factors: (1) interrelated operations, (2) common management, (3) common ownership, and, most importantly, (4) centralized control of labor relations. Since BMHCC and Baptist Tipton did not share offices, locations, equipment, or bank accounts, the Court found that the entities’ operations were not interrelated. Additionally, because Baptist-Tipton had its own Administrator, CEO, and managers, independent of BMHCC, the Court also determined that there was no common management between Baptist-Tipton and BMHCC. However, the Court found that the entities shared common ownership, because BMHCC was the sole owner of Baptist-Tipton.
Most importantly, the Court found that the entities utilized centralized control over labor relations. In making that determination, the Court focused on an email that Baptist-Tipton employee had sent to the Human Resources Director at BMHCC. The email, which was entitled “terminationbohannon.doc”, asked simply, “What do you think?” To that, the Human Resources Director responded, “Looks good — let’s roll with….” The Court found that this email exchange (and the fact that it occurred just two days before the termination) showed that Baptist-Tipton sought approval from BMHCC before firing Mr. Bohannon. Thus, for purposes of liability to Mr. Bohannon, the two entities constituted a single employer.
Previous Post