Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., C-70-289.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. C-70-289.,C-70-289. |
| Citation | 336 F. Supp. 432 |
| Parties | Sidney Lee HASSELL, Plaintiff, v. HARMON FOODS, INC., and Continental Coffee Company, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Phillip E. Kuhn, Finley, Stein, Kuhn & Sisson, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff.
John E. McKee, Memphis, Tenn., Victor G. Savikas, Friedman, Koven, Shapiro, Salzman, Koenigsberg, Specks & Homer, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Plaintiff, Sidney Lee Hassell, has brought an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Harmon Foods, Inc., which is a Tennessee corporation (whose corporate name now is actually Continental Coffee Company of Tennessee, Inc.) and which has its only place of business at Memphis, and against Continental Coffee Company, which is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business at Chicago. Plaintiff alleges that, as a Negro employee of the place of business at Memphis, he was because of his race fired in 1969 and that there were other discriminatory practices with respect to Negro employees at that place of business.
Defendant Continental Coffee Company has filed a motion for summary judgment based on affidavits and exhibits showing that plaintiff's charges that were made to the E.E.O.C. and the E.E. O.C.'s effort to adjust the controversy were directed solely to Harmon Foods, Inc. Defendant Harmon Foods, Inc. has made a motion to dismiss (which is in reality a motion for summary judgment) based on an affidavit and exhibits showing that it did not have the requisite number of employees to make it subject to the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
When the motions came on for hearing, plaintiff's counsel conceded that defendant Harmon Foods, Inc, did not have the requisite number of employees. His contention was, however, that defendant Harmon Foods, Inc. and defendant Continental Coffee Company should be treated as the "employer" of plaintiff, that is to say, that for present purposes the defendants should be treated as one entity and that on this basis both motions for summary judgment should be overruled.
Mr. Bill Harmon, general manager and an officer in Harmon Foods, Inc., testified at the hearing, following which counsel for plaintiff asked for and received leave to file interrogatories, the answers by defendants to be considered by the Court in connection with these motions. The interrogatories and answers are now before the Court.
For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armbruster v. Quinn
...district court followed the correct law. Admittedly, for this circuit, it only had the benefit of the decision in Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 432 (W.D.Tenn.1971), aff'd, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972), but it also followed the criteria set out in Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co.......
-
Ashe v. Distribuidora Norma, Inc.
...relationship is actually fake. Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corp., 637 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1980) (citing Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 432, 433 (W.D.Tenn.1971), aff'd, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972)). A parent-subsidiary relationship is a sham when the two companies in realit......
-
Ashe v. Distribuidora Norma, Inc.
...relationship is actually fake. Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corp., 637 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1980) (citing Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 432, 433 (W.D.Tenn.1971), aff'd, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972) ). A parent-subsidiary relationship is a sham when the two companies in reali......
-
NEEDREPLACE
...relationship is actually fake. Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corp., 637 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1980) (citing Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 432, 433 (W.D.Tenn.1971), aff'd, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir.1972)). A parent-subsidiary relationship is a sham when the two companies in realit......
-
Corporations beware: the Eighth Circuit announces new criteria for parent corporation liability and constructive notice of harassment.
...Ass'n, 341 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. La. 1972). (56.) Baker, 560 F.2d at 392. The court in this case cited Hassell v. Harmon Foods, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tenn. 1971), aff'd, 454 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1972), where the Western District of Tennessee was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit's holding tha......