Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADEA action by plaintiff alleging that he was terminated on account of his age, where plaintiff failed to show that defendant had requisite 20 employees during relevant time period so as to establish defendant as covered employer under ADEA. While defendant had 17 employees plus three other individuals who performed occasional services for defendant but were employed by separate business that had common ownership with defendant, plaintiff could not count said individuals as defendant’s employees under economic realities test, where: (1) record showed that defendant lacked any control over said individuals; (2) defendant did not instruct said individuals with respect to their job tasks performed on behalf of defendant; and (3) defendant did not pay said individuals for job tasks performed on behalf of defendant. Also, plaintiff could not count all employees from second company that employed said individuals under any indirect employment theory since, although there was certain degree of integration between both companies, defendant and second company were separate entities that observed corporate formalities such as separate boards, separate invoices, separate bank accounts, separate management, and separate tax returns.