Farlow v. Wachovia Bank NC ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    JEWEL A. FARLOW,                        
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
             No. 00-2251
    WACHOVIA BANK     OF   NORTH
    CAROLINA, N.A.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CA-98-479-1)
    Argued: April 5, 2001
    Decided: August 6, 2001
    Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
    Rebecca Beach SMITH, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion.
    Judge Widener wrote the opinion, in which Judge Luttig and Judge
    Smith joined.
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Nancy Pulliam Quinn, THE QUINN LAW FIRM,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mack Sperling,
    BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD,
    2              FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK     OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James
    P. Hutcherson, Vice President and Counsel, Legal Department,
    WACHOVIA BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A., Winston-
    Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    OPINION
    WIDENER, Circuit Judge:
    Jewel A. Farlow (Farlow) appeals the district court’s dismissal of
    her discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (1994 & 2000 Supp.), because she was
    not an employee of Wachovia Bank of North Carolina (Wachovia).
    We affirm the judgment of the district court as to Title VII, and we
    remand to the district court with directions Farlow’s state-law claims.
    I.
    Farlow graduated from law school in 1988. Wachovia subsequently
    employed her to represent it, while she was an associate in a Greens-
    boro, North Carolina law firm. In February 1991, Farlow went into
    private practice in Greensboro, and she continued to keep Wachovia
    as a client. In 1993, Farlow and Wachovia discussed the possibility
    of Farlow working as in-house counsel for Wachovia to handle recov-
    ery and bankruptcy cases.
    On October 5, 1993, Farlow completed a Wachovia employee
    application form in which she disclosed that she was convicted of two
    counts of misdemeanor larceny in 1982. Those convictions made it
    unlawful for her to become an employee of Wachovia without Federal
    Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approval.1 Farlow was aware
    1
    12 U.S.C. § 1829 (a)(1) (1989 & 2000 Supp.) states:
    (a) Prohibition
    (1) In general
    Except with the prior written consent of the Corporation—
    FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA             3
    of this statute and knew that she could not become an employee
    unless Wachovia received a waiver from the FDIC.2
    The parties nonetheless proceeded with their working relationship,
    and Farlow moved on-site with Wachovia in Winston-Salem where
    she worked from March 1994 to December 1994. When she moved
    on-site, Farlow closed her private office in Greensboro in March
    1994. The parties subsequently entered into a written contract exe-
    cuted on September 19, 19943 for legal services for Wachovia in
    (A) any person who has been convicted of any criminal
    offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust, or money
    laundering or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or
    similar program in connection with a prosecution for such
    offense, may not—
    (i) become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party
    with respect to any insured depository institution;
    (ii) own or control, directly or indirectly, any insured
    depository institution; or
    (iii) otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the
    conduct of the affairs of any insured depository institu-
    tion; and
    (B) any insured depository institution may not permit any
    person referred to in subparagraph (A) to engage in any con-
    duct or continue any relationship prohibited under such sub-
    paragraph.
    2
    Farlow specifically stated:
    They could not officially, quote, put me on the payroll or offi-
    cially give me any benefits until that FDIC waiver. They could
    not do that . . . . I mean, they couldn’t make it on their record
    that I was an employee until the FDIC waiver.
    Wachovia could not officially put me on the books or have it
    known that I was an employee there until that waiver came
    through.
    3
    This contract was placed in the record with an affidavit of Kenneth
    W. McAllister, a senior vice president and general counsel of Wachovia.
    The affidavit stated that McAllister had personal knowledge of the mat-
    4           FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK       OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    bankruptcy, debt collection and such matters that provided that Far-
    low was an independent contractor.4 It was the intent of the parties
    that Farlow would not be considered an employee unless the FDIC
    waiver was obtained. At oral argument, we were told without refuta-
    tion that a waiver was never sought for Farlow. Wachovia never sent
    her an official offer letter detailing her position, salary, and benefits.
    Wachovia did not keep a personnel file on her, and Farlow never
    completed federal and state withholding forms, a fidelity bond appli-
    cation, the Form I-9 (an immigration status form), a form acknowl-
    edging receipt of Wachovia’s Code of Conduct, or the supplemental
    personal data form listing contact and other information that all
    Wachovia employees complete and that would be contained in the
    personnel file. Additionally, during that 10-month relationship with
    Wachovia, she continued to work with clients obtained from her sole
    practice as well as to take on new, non-Wachovia clients.
    The money paid to Farlow by Wachovia was reported to the Inter-
    nal Revenue Service (IRS) with a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form.5
    ters contained in the affidavit, which would make it comply with Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 56(e). The contract is signed by one G. Jerry Venable, an officer
    of the bank, and by the plaintiff, Farlow, and is dated September 19,
    1994, some months after Farlow moved her office into the bank building.
    In her deposition, Farlow freely admits signing the contract but then,
    remarkably, states that "To the best of my knowledge" the bank did not
    execute the contract until after she was "no longer employed by Defen-
    dant," this in an apparent effort to avoid the consequences of the con-
    tract. Because Rule 56(e) requires supporting and opposing affidavits to
    be "made on personal knowledge," as the record stands in this case, the
    contract was signed by Wachovia and Farlow on September 19, 1994, as
    it shows on its face.
    4
    This contract for legal services recites that "Wachovia desires to
    retain the services of the Attorney as an independent, professional con-
    tractor . . . ." Article I states that "Wachovia hereby engages the Attorney
    as an independent professional." Article 2(F) states that "The Attorney
    shall in no way be considered or act in such manner so that she might
    be considered to be an employee or an agent of Wachovia. . . ." Article
    6 states that "The Attorney will not be considered an employee of
    Wachovia or any of its subsidiary companies for any purpose."
    5
    Form 1099 is used for reporting the income of non-employees, and
    the W-2 form is used for reporting the income of employees.
    FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA           5
    She was never paid a salary during her 10 months there; while
    employees are paid twice monthly, she was paid for the bills she sub-
    mitted. She did not receive business cards, and the letterhead she used
    designated that she was merely an Attorney-at-Law. Farlow was,
    however, provided with on-site office space, support staff, equipment,
    the use of company vehicles, and was paid for continuing education
    matters. Wachovia also exercised control over the hours that she had
    access to her office. Farlow did not receive benefits such as paid
    vacation, long-term disability insurance, business travel and accident
    insurance, life insurance; nor did she partake in Wachovia’s retire-
    ment savings and profit-sharing plan, or its common stock purchase
    plan.
    After working at Wachovia for a period of months, Farlow com-
    plained about a sexually and racially hostile work environment. She
    was terminated, effective December 21, 1994. Upon termination, Far-
    low submitted a request for payment for her services while employed
    there. Wachovia paid part of the request.
    Farlow subsequently filed suit in North Carolina state court on May
    1, 1998. The Complaint alleged four causes of action: 1) under Title
    VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the creation of a racially and sex-
    ually hostile work environment and Title VII retaliation; 2) failure to
    pay wages due; 3) punitive damages; and 4) a request for injunctive
    relief. Wachovia removed the case to the Middle District of North
    Carolina based on federal question jurisdiction. Wachovia filed an
    answer, which denied that Farlow was an employee, and counter-
    claimed for a return of money paid to her. Farlow filed an answer to
    the counterclaim. Discovery was bifurcated to address initially Far-
    low’s employment status. At the close of discovery, Wachovia filed
    a Motion for Summary Judgment, and on August 31, 2000, the district
    court dismissed her claims in entirety because she was not an
    employee. Farlow timely appealed.
    II.
    We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review
    a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See United
    States v. Kanasco, Ltd., 
    123 F.3d 209
    , 210 (4th Cir. 1997). The mov-
    ing party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
    6              FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK       OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 
    477 U.S. 317
    , 322-23
    (1986). We consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
    moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    , 255
    (1986). The facts with respect to the employment relationship are not
    materially in conflict. Resolution of factors as "to whether an employ-
    ment relationship or an independent contractor relationship was cre-
    ated" is "a question of law." Cilecek v. Inova Health Systems Servs.,
    
    115 F.3d 256
    , 261 (4th Cir. 1997). Merely because employee and
    independent contractor status is each supported by certain factors
    does not bar entry of summary judgment. Whether a person is an
    employee depends on the common law of agency definition of
    employee. 
    Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 259
    , 261-63.
    Farlow appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
    Wachovia on her Title VII claim and argues she was employed by
    Wachovia. Wachovia argues that Farlow was merely an independent
    contractor and thus Title VII is not applicable. Each side concedes
    that Title VII only applies if Farlow was an employee of Wachovia.6
    See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f) (defining "employee" as "an individual
    employed by an employer"); 
    Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 263
    . The Supreme
    Court has outlined several factors that a court should consider to
    determine whether a party is an employee or independent contractor:
    In determining whether a hired party is an employee under
    the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring
    party’s right to control the manner and means by which the
    product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant
    to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instru-
    mentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration
    of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring
    party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired
    party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when
    and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired
    party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the
    work is part of the regular business of the hiring party;
    whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of
    6
    Neither party disputes that Wachovia is within the definition of
    employer under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
    FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA            7
    employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.
    No one of these factors is determinative.
    Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 
    490 U.S. 730
    , 751-52
    (1989) (citations and footnotes omitted). We recently applied these
    factors in Cilecek and added that the parties’ beliefs regarding the
    nature of the employment relationship are significant. 
    See 115 F.3d at 259-63
    .
    The district court methodically addressed each of the Reid factors
    and counted factors in favor of Farlow when they were unclear. For
    our purposes here, we highlight several of the more pertinent factors
    implicated by the facts of this case. The touchstone inquiry enunci-
    ated in Reid addresses the degree of the "hiring party’s right to control
    the manner and means by which the product is accomplished." 
    Reid, 490 U.S. at 751
    . The degree of control considers the degree of control
    of the professional services rendered rather than "‘peripheral, admin-
    istrative details which were incidental to the rendering of . . . ser-
    vices.’" Robb v. United States, 
    80 F.3d 884
    , 889 (4th Cir. 1996)
    (quotations omitted). In this case, Farlow has not presented evidence
    suggesting that she was under the direct control of any Wachovia
    supervisor regarding the performance of her professional services.
    Farlow stated that her non-lawyer supervisor, Jerry Venable, "did not
    tell me what the law was." Indeed, this conduct was consistent with
    the language of the contract for legal services Farlow signed,
    "Wachovia shall not exert any control, direction, or supervision over
    the Attorney with regard to the manner, details, or means through
    which she renders such services."
    Farlow has, however, presented evidence that she was required to
    attend staff meetings, comply with a dress code, and told the hours
    that her office was available. Although she was required to comply
    with these administrative details suggesting she was an employee, the
    lack of oversight in the actual rendering of her skilled, professional
    services weighs in favor of finding that Farlow was an independent
    contractor despite the administrative oversight. See Eyerman v. Mary
    Kay Cosmetics, Inc., 
    967 F.2d 213
    , 218-19 (6th Cir. 1992). However,
    as we noted in Cilecek, if the nature of the profession, such as medi-
    cine, or in this case, the law, mandates less control by supervisors,
    this lack of control may not be as significant in this context as it
    8          FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    would be in other service relationships. See 
    Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 260
    .
    Thus, we also look to other more relevant factors outlined below.
    We next consider the source of the instrumentalities and the loca-
    tion of work under Reid. In general, when equipment is furnished dur-
    ing a working relationship and work is done on-site, these facts tend
    to favor an employment rather than independent contractor relation-
    ship. See Kirk v. Harter, 
    188 F.3d 1005
    , 1009 (8th Cir. 1999). Farlow
    contends that she was provided with a car and a Wachovia computer7
    on the Wachovia premises to do her work. Wachovia also provided
    Farlow with administrative assistants.8 These facts suggest that Far-
    low was an employee, although we note that independent contractors
    at Wachovia often are provided with equipment and office space dur-
    ing their working relationship. On the other hand, Wachovia did not
    provide Farlow with other identifying marks that would normally be
    provided to employees, such as business cards, letterhead, and mal-
    practice insurance. Despite the ambiguity on this factor, we will count
    it toward finding that Farlow was an employee.
    We next address the duration of the working relationship. The
    duration of the relationship of the parties, when viewed in the context
    of the written contract signed by Farlow in this case, suggests an inde-
    pendent contractor relationship was intended by the parties. See
    
    Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 262
    ("[T]hat the relationship was an enduring
    one might suggest the regularity inherent in an employment relation-
    ship."). Prior to working on-site, Farlow worked remotely for several
    years for Wachovia, which clearly suggests an independent contractor
    relationship. When she moved on-site, she worked a total of 10
    months for Wachovia. This duration, coupled with the move to
    Wachovia’s premises, is some indication that an employment rela-
    tionship was intended. However, in Cilecek, we held that the parties’
    7
    There is a dispute about whether Farlow’s or Wachovia’s computer
    was used by Farlow. We assume, for purposes of the motion for sum-
    mary judgment, that Wachovia provided Farlow with a computer.
    8
    Wachovia provided temporary assistants to Farlow because she
    expressed concerns about Wachovia employees providing services on
    matters involving her other non-Wachovia clients. In addition, the con-
    tract for legal services stated that she should hire her own assistants.
    FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA           9
    actual understanding of their working relationship is another factor to
    consider in this determination. 
    See 115 F.3d at 261
    .
    Importantly, the facts of this case suggest that Farlow knew she
    could not be an employee of Wachovia without FDIC approval
    because of her past criminal history. In this regard, she knew that no
    waiver was in fact granted, and she signed a contract for legal ser-
    vices that repeatedly indicated her status as an independent contractor.
    Wachovia’s actions upon Farlow’s employment are consistent with
    this understanding: no offer letter was sent and no personnel file was
    created or maintained for Farlow. Although the intent may have been
    to have her ultimately become an employee, the facts show that this
    could not occur until an FDIC waiver was obtained. Thus, we place
    great weight on the actual understanding between the parties and find
    that this factor weighs heavily in favor of treating Farlow as an inde-
    pendent contractor.
    We also note, especially, that Wachovia did not preclude Farlow
    from representing former clients and from gaining new, non-
    Wachovia clients during her time working with Wachovia. For a law-
    yer, this clearly signifies the lack of an in-house counsel, or employ-
    ment, relationship. The contract for legal services Farlow signed
    provided that she could represent other clients. Moreover, the record
    reflects that Farlow did have an active practice, representing more
    than 30 clients, during the time period she worked with Wachovia,
    and she admitted that she took on new clients during the 10-month
    relationship with Wachovia. Wachovia does not permit its lawyer
    employees to represent outside clients. These facts also strongly sug-
    gest that Farlow was an independent contractor rather than an
    employee. See 
    Cilecek, 115 F.3d at 261
    (addressing whether
    employer had the right to "preclude the [alleged employee] from
    working at other facilities or for competitors").
    The Reid Court also highlighted several factors relating to the
    financial relationship between the parties including the tax treatment
    of the worker, employee benefits, and how the worker was paid. We
    hold that these financial factors are significant in determining a work-
    er’s status. See Aymes v. Bonelli, 
    980 F.2d 857
    , 863 (2d Cir. 1992)
    (stating that "every case since Reid that has applied the test has found
    the hired party to be an independent contractor where the hiring party
    10         FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    failed to extend benefits or pay social security taxes"). The failure of
    an employer to extend employment benefits or to pay any payroll
    taxes is "highly indicative" that the employee is an independent con-
    tractor. 
    Aymes, 980 F.2d at 862
    . A party’s tax and benefit treatment
    can be "virtual admissions" of the party’s status. See 
    Aymes, 980 F.2d at 862
    . In addition, the "absence of regular, periodic payments is an
    indicia of independent contractor status." Kirk v. Harter, 
    188 F.3d 1005
    , 1008 (8th Cir. 1999).
    In this case, Wachovia did not withhold taxes from Farlow’s pay
    and did not pay Social Security tax thereupon. Significantly, as noted,
    it reported her earnings to the IRS on a Form 1099 rather than the W-
    2 form, and Farlow herself candidly admitted that she was self-
    employed to the IRS on the relevant tax returns. Moreover, Farlow
    did not receive paid vacation, long-term disability insurance, business
    travel and accident insurance, life insurance, partake in Wachovia’s
    retirement savings and profit-sharing plan, or its common stock pur-
    chase plan. She did not even have a checking account at Wachovia,
    which Wachovia requires of its employees. Additionally, she was not
    paid weekly, bi-weekly, or on any schedule as other employees are
    paid; rather, she submitted bills for hours worked based on a $41 per-
    hour-rate after over 10-months of work and was paid in response to
    those bills. These facts are quite significant regarding her status as an
    independent contractor rather than an employee, and we place great
    weight on them.
    Upon review of all of these factors, it is clear that, although some
    may weigh in favor of a finding that Farlow was an employee, the
    vast majority of them, including the most significant, weigh in favor
    of the conclusion that Farlow was an independent contractor. We
    place greater weight on: 1) the financial relationship between the par-
    ties in which she was paid not a salary but only in response to her
    bills, for services actually rendered; 2) the financial relationship
    between the parties in which Wachovia did not withhold or pay any
    taxes that are incident to an employment relationship; 3) the financial
    relationship between the parties in which Farlow did not receive
    employee benefits such as medical and life insurance; 4) Farlow’s fil-
    ing of income tax returns under a self-employed status; 5) the express
    intent of the parties as indicated in the contract Farlow signed labeling
    her as an independent contractor; 6) that Farlow did not work exclu-
    FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK       OF   NORTH CAROLINA         11
    sively for Wachovia during her working relationship with it; and (7)
    that Wachovia exercised no control over the manner of her work.
    These factors demonstrate that Farlow exercised independence from
    Wachovia. Although Wachovia did provide Farlow with instrumental-
    ities such as a computer and did exercise control over some adminis-
    trative details incident to her on-site work, such as monitoring her
    dress code, supplying some support staff, and controlling the hours
    she could use her office, when balanced against the clear intent of the
    parties and the striking economic realities surrounding the working
    relationship in this case, we conclude that the district court was cor-
    rect, as a matter of law, in holding that Farlow was an independent
    contractor for Wachovia, and not its employee. We thus affirm that
    aspect of the decision of the district court.
    III.
    We next address Farlow’s claim that the district court erred in dis-
    missing her state-law claims. The judgment of the district court dis-
    missed the case in its entirety, which would have included the state-
    law claims, and under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
    dure, such dismissal would have been a decision on the merits. The
    district court, however, had not considered the state-law claims, so the
    dismissal of them on the merits was error for that reason.
    In United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 
    383 U.S. 715
    (1966),
    the predecessor of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the 1990 statute with respect to
    supplemental jurisdiction, the Court, although not denying the right
    of the district court to decide pendent claims, stated that "Certainly,
    if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insub-
    stantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed
    as well." 
    Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726
    . Following Gibbs, the Court decided
    in Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 
    484 U.S. 343
    , 357 (1988),
    that, in a case in which the federal claims had been deleted from the
    complaint by the plaintiff, before trial, following a removal from a
    state court, the district court had the discretion to remand the pendent
    state-law claims to the state court.
    The upshot of applying Gibbs, Cohill and § 1367 to this case is that
    on remand, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the
    pendent state-law claims without prejudice, remand the state-law
    12         FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK      OF   NORTH CAROLINA
    claims to the state court, or decide the merits of the state-law claims
    if it believes it should not follow the statement we have quoted from
    Gibbs.
    The counterclaim of Wachovia, which was filed after removal,
    being based solely on the ground of excessiveness of fees charged, is
    a state-law claim. If the district court should elect to decide the pen-
    dent or supplemental claims, it should dispose of, in that proceeding,
    the counterclaim also. If the district court elects to remand the case
    to the state court, it should dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice
    prior to the remand so that Wachovia may reassert the same in the
    state court should it be so advised. Should the district court elect to
    dismiss the state-law claims, that dismissal should be without preju-
    dice.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
    AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS