Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. August 6, 1998)

Keywords: ADA (definition of employee)

Introduction: Jotham Johnson sued the City under Title I and II of the ADA. This case summary only addresses the Title I claim. The district court dismissed the Title I claim. The Sixth Circuit affirms.

Facts: Johnson has ankylosing spondylitis. The disease caused him to get both of his hips replaced, and his doctor has told him not to carry heavy objects or to use stairs. In 1988, the City entered into an agreement with SVI (a corporation to be formed by Johnson and an associate) to operate the City's public access cable station.

The main problem for Johnson was that the station's studio was on the second floor of a City building. The only available bathroom was on the first floor. Johnson asked that the station be moved to a more accessible location. In 1995, the City terminated the agreement.

Law:

1. In determining whether there was an employee-employer relationship, the City applies the common-law test set forth in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992).
2. Using the Darden factors that apply here, the Sixth Circuit finds as follows:
   1. Johnson's contract with the City establishes an independent contractor relationship. Johnson came and went as he pleased. Johnson hired and fired his own staff. He was paid irregularly if at all by the City, on an ad hoc basis, and he got most of his money from the advertising revenue he himself mustered. The City provided no employee benefits to Johnson, and Johnson considered himself self-employed for tax purposes.
   2. The City did control some aspects of the station's operations, and referred to a particular official as his "supervisor."  Also, Johnson claims that the City exercised more and more control over his ability to work.
   3. But the Sixth Circuit determines that there was no employee-employer relationship.
3. Title I of the ADA does not apply. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of this claim.
4. Click here to see actual case.