Garzon v. First National Assets Management, LLC, No. 1:2016cv11525 - Document 68 (N.D. Ill. 2018)
Court Description: Memorandum opinion and order. For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion and order, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed against Arrowmark with prejudice. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Status hearing set for 7/25/18 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 7/11/2018:Mailed notice(maf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ELIZA GARZON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. ARROWMARK COLORADO HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a ARROWMARK PARTNERS, and FIRST NATIONAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT, LLC, 16 C 11525 Judge Harry D. Leinenweber Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND This is Plaintiff’s third effort to keep Arrowmark in the case as a party defendant. After dismissing Arrowmark for the second time and denying leave to amend, the Court relented and granted a Motion to Reconsider, allowing Plaintiff to file this Second Amended Plaintiff was Complaint. employed by According Defendant, to the First latest National effort, Assets Management, LLC (“First National”), which is located in Chicago. She claims that the Defendant Arrowmark, which is located in Denver, Colorado, liability under is Title following allegations: First National; (2) her VII. joint She employer bases for this purposes claim on of the (1) Arrowmark is the majority owner of while attending a meeting at First National’s office, she (and other First National employees) were told that “Arrowmark National”; (3) had taken Arrowmark’s over the co-founder business and of First principal, David Corkins (“Corkins”), had authority regarding First National’s human resource decisions, including the power to terminate First National employees; director of (4) John Eisinger (“Eisinger”), a managing Arrowmark, became President and Chief Executive Officer of First National and assumed responsibility for day-today management and control of First National’s operations and employees; (5) Eisinger reported directly to Corkins; (7) Eisinger represented himself to First National employees as a member of Arrowmark’s senior management team; (8) Eisinger operated primarily from Arrowmark’s Denver office; (9) Arrowmark employees were in regular Employees and provided communication First National with First with National “comprehensive financial analysis”; (10) Plaintiff and First National employees were advised that Jill Jepsen (“Jepsen”), an Arrowmark employee, was responsible for human resources at First National; (11) Plaintiff made her sex harassment complaint to Jepsen; and (12) First National’s Chief told Plaintiff that Operating she would Officer, Olibia Stamatoglou, notify Jepsen of her sex harassment claim. Beginning in 2013, Plaintiff was harassed in a severe, pervasive and unwelcome manner by James Athanasopoulos, a client of First National. Nothing was done to stop it and it continued - 2 - throughout her employment. Her supervisor advised her to file a formal complaint with Jepson, which she did by E-mail. from either Defendant responded to her complaint. No one Plaintiff filed this action as a result. II. DISCUSSION Defendant has moved to dismiss, contending that Plaintiff has once again failed to allege sufficient facts to allow the Court to find that Arrowmark was Plaintiff’s joint employer. See Love v. J.P. Cullen & Sons, Inc., 779 F.3d 697, 705 (7th Cir. 2015) plaintiff (affirming failed relationship). to realities employer and or allege of facts Title VII showing claim where employer-employee Love teaches that courts should consider the economic control dismissal the of the relationship employee supervision as between established exercised. the the F.3d 779 by at putative degree of 705. In analyzing this issue, the Love court said that the so-called five factor Knight test was helpful. v. United Farm Bureau, These factors are: control and 950 F.2d Id. at 701 (citing Knight 377, 380 (7th Cir. 1991)). (1) the extent of the alleged employer’s supervision of the employee; (2) the kind of occupation and the nature of the skilled required, and whether the skill was obtained on the job; (3) the employer’s responsibility for the cost of operation; (4) the method and - 3 - form of compensation; and (5) the length of the job commitment. Id. When analyzing this case under the above test and that of the economic realities, the Court finds that there are insufficient allegations to justify a finding that Arrowmark was a joint employer. covered at regarding all the in Four of the five Knight factors are not the Complaint. nature of There First are National’s no and businesses or how they relate to one another. allegations Arrowmark’s The Complaint also does not even state what work Plaintiff performs for First National. The Court does not know the nature of any skill required, what entity has responsibility for the cost of operating the business, or the method and form of compensation. The Court does not even know if Plaintiff was a contractual employee or one at-will. attempts to cover is The only Knight factor that Plaintiff control and supervision, and her sole allegation is that David Corkins, a principal for Arrowmark, had the power to terminate Plaintiff and other First National employees (a power which was not even implicated in this case as Plaintiff was not terminated). The allegation does not include any other supervisory duties or controls that Corkins has over First National employees. Love is on point. 779 F.3d at 705. In that case, the alleged “indirect employer” had the power to remove the plaintiff permanently - 4 - without the consent of the plaintiff’s direct employer. Id. at 703. Nevertheless, the court said that he did not hire plaintiff, set his hours, and did not directly supervise him. Id. Therefore, he was not a de facto or indirect employer under Title VII. Id. at 706. Again, the most that can be determined from the allegations of the Complaint is that there is some integration of the two companies, which the Court already held, when it dismissed the First Amended Complaint, to be insufficient. Garzon v. Arrowmark Colo. Holdings, LLC, No. 16 C 11525, 2017 WL 6988659, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing NLRB v. W. Temp. Servs., Inc., 821 F.2d 1258, 1266 (7th Cir. 1987)). Plaintiff has failed to show that the economic realities make Arrowmark her joint employer. III. CONCLUSION Since Plaintiff has had three chances at stating a claim for joint-employer status for Arrowmark, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed against Arrowmark with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge United States District Court Dated: 7/11/2018 - 5 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
