{"id":1059,"date":"2012-08-24T10:30:07","date_gmt":"2012-08-24T14:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=1059"},"modified":"2012-08-24T10:46:21","modified_gmt":"2012-08-24T14:46:21","slug":"clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/","title":{"rendered":"Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Facts: <\/strong>Wells, a bookkeeper for eleven years at Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, brought an action under the ADA for unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability. Clackamas moved for summary judgment on the basis that it did not have 15 employees which is required for the ADA to apply. Clackamas is a professional corporation which has 14 employees. In addition to the 14 employees, however, Clackamas is owned by four physicians who are actively engaged in the medical practice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue: <\/strong>Whether the four physician shareholders and directors of Clackamas, who are actively engaged in medical practice, should be counted as \u201cemployees\u201d under the ADA.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedural History: <\/strong>The district court applied the <a title=\"Ansoumana v. Gristede\u2019s Operating Corp., 255 F. Supp. 2d 184 (SDNY 2003)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/ansoumana-v-gristedes-operating-corp\/\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">economic realities test<\/span><\/a> and concluded that the four doctors were not employees for purposes of the ADA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed because it saw \u201cno reason to permit a professional corporation to secure the best of both possible worlds.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong>The trial court must apply the common-law tests, specifically the element of control, to determine whether the physicians are employees or the employer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judgment: <\/strong>Reversed and remanded to the district court.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Reasoning: <\/strong>Because Congress did not \u201chelpfully define\u201d the term employee, the Court believed that \u201cCongress intended to describe the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common law agency doctrine.\u201d Therefore, the majority looked to the Restatement (Second) of Agency and six (non-exhaustive) similar factors submitted by the EEOC. The court focused on the factor of control stating, \u201cWe think that the common-law element of control is the principal guidepost that should be followed in this case.\u201d Under this factor, the physicians appear <em>not <\/em>to be employees of the clinic. For example, the physicians apparently control the operation, share the profits, and are personally liable for malpractice claims.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ginsburg\u2019s Dissent: <\/strong>Ginsburg did not agree with the Court\u2019s placement of \u201coverriding significance\u201d on the one factor of control. In addition, the same physicians had defined themselves as \u201cemployees\u201d under ERISA; which defined employee the same way as the ADA. (But see <em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><a title=\"Yates v. Hendon, 541 US 1 (2004)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/yates-v-hendon\/\">Yates v. Hendon<\/a><\/span><\/em>). Furthermore, the physicians are covered by Oregon\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation law. Ginsburg concluded that Clackmas, the professional corporation, is the employer and the physicians are employees of the corporation. This conclusion came from the fact that the professional corporation was created in order to limit the physicians\u2019 liability for the debts of the practice and that the physicians had to adhere to the corporation\u2019s policies and procedures.<\/p>\n<p>Compare to <a title=\"Yates v. Hendon, 541 US 1 (2004)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/yates-v-hendon\/\">Yates v. Hendon, 541 US 1 (2004)<\/a> which the Supreme Court decides the next term.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts: Wells, a bookkeeper for eleven years at Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, brought an action under the ADA for unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability. Clackamas moved for summary judgment on the basis that it did not have 15 employees which is required for the ADA to apply. Clackamas is a professional corporation which has &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[194,193],"tags":[196,195],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003). Clackamas was the employer of Wells for eleven years\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003). Clackamas was the employer of Wells for eleven years\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-08-24T14:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-08-24T14:46:21+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/\",\"name\":\"Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-24T14:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-24T14:46:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells, 538 US 440 (2003). Clackamas was the employer of Wells for eleven years\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/clackamas-gastroenterology-associates-v-wells\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1059"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1059"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1059\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1061,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1059\/revisions\/1061"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}