Jenkins v. Travelers Ins. Co., Civ. No. 74-556.

Decision Date14 September 1977
Docket NumberCiv. No. 74-556.
PartiesForrest A. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

Charles J. Merten, Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Herbert H. Anderson, Portland, Or., for defendant.

OPINION

BURNS, District Judge:

This is both a typical and an atypical employment discrimination case. Its scenario is familiar: an embittered former employee, a defensive employer, acrimonious exchanges, and hyperbole and self-righteousness from both sides. Each side feels aggrieved by the posture adopted by the other; each mourns or maligns the motive of the other. Because determination of a state of mind — racial motivation, or the lack of it — is such a difficult problem for the fact finder, these cases are typically difficult.

This case is, however, atypical because it presents an unusual and threshold question — was plaintiff an "employee," within the meaning of Title VII, the statute under which the case was brought. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) Because I find and hold that plaintiff (Jenkins) was not, I am not required to resolve the factual issue of racial discrimination, or the lack of it.

Jenkins is a negro male. In the fall 1971 he applied to enroll in Travelers Insurance Company's career agent accelerated program and was accepted. The program was designed for experienced salesmen, which Jenkins was; he had already sold insurance for four years for another company.

Jenkins, like others on this program, received no salaries or wages. Their only compensation came from commissions on insurance placed with Travelers. Travelers advised the trainees that they were self-employed agents, and that they therefore had to file the appropriate reports required by the Social Security Act.

Travelers did not withhold taxes on trainees. Jenkins did not report any withholding. He paid the taxes due from a self-employed person on the appropriate tax form.

Agents such as Jenkins who had not worked at least three years for Travelers were not eligible for the company's retirement program. They were eligible to enroll in Travelers' group life and health plan, but Travelers did not contribute to the plan. The only contributions came from the agents themselves.

Jenkins' contract with Travelers left him free to solicit whatever insurance applications his license permitted. He could sell any type of insurance. He could sell to anyone he wished. He could and did sell both to blacks and whites. Demonstrating the business acumen without which it could not have reached its well known success, Travelers encouraged Jenkins to actively solicit applications in the black community of which he was a part and in which he may have been the only insurance agent then working the Portland area.

Jenkins did not have to report his daily activities. He received some assistance and training on the job but virtually no supervision. As will be seen, such supervision was not necessary to promote diligence and productivity; unproductive agents were simply terminated and new ones brought in.

To provide trainees with sustenance, Travelers advanced interest-free weekly loans based on the trainee's projected income needs. Contracts with trainees provided for these loans and stated that the recipient...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lutcher v. Musicians Union Local 47
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 8, 1980
    ...his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's ... religion.2 Jenkins v. Travelers Insurance Co., 436 F.Supp. 950, 952 (D.Or.1977); Smith v. Dutra Trucking Co., 410 F.Supp. 513, 518 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd mem., 580 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1978); Mathis ......
  • Dutson v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 9, 1994
    ...382, 421 P.2d 971, 973 (1966). See also Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir.1991); Jenkins v. Travelers Ins. Co., 436 F.Supp. 950 (D.Or.1977). The second factor is the method of payment. The fact that plaintiff's earnings do not depend on the number of hours he......
  • Barnes v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 3:92-CV-2316-H.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • April 5, 1993
    ...(N.D.Ind.1983), aff'd mem., 742 F.2d 1459 (7th Cir.1984); Dake v. Mutual of Omaha, 600 F.Supp. 63 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Jenkins v. Travelers Ins. Co., 436 F.Supp. 950 (D.Or.1977). Plaintiff offers no apposite authority holding For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not met her burden of ......
  • USEEOC v. CATHOLIC KNIGHTS INS. SOCIETY, 94 C 5744.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 16, 1996
    ...F.Supp. 63 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Dixon v. Burman, 593 F.Supp. 6 (N.D.Ind.1983) aff'd mem. 742 F.2d 1459 (7th Cir.1984); Jenkins v. Travelers Ins. Co., 436 F.Supp. 950 (D.Or. 1977)); Dutson v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 815 F.Supp. 349 (D.Or.1993), aff'd mem., 35 F.3d 570 (9th IV. Accordingly, viewin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT