In order to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she had an employment relationship with the defendant. Although various tests have been developed to determine employment status, courts generally focus on whether the hiring party maintains the right to control the manner and means by which the worker performs the job. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed this issue in the case of Bird v. Mastery Charter Schools (April 30, 2025), and held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant exercised a sufficient level of control over her work in order to establish an employment relationship. Therefore, the plaintiff’s Title VII claims were properly dismissed.
Mia Bird worked for The Nutrition Group (TNG), a company which manages cafeteria food services for school systems in multiple states. One of TNG’s clients was Mastery Charter Schools, which runs charter schools in Philadelphia. TNG promoted Ms. Bird to resident regional manager of the Mastery network, and in that capacity she was required to spend 80% of her time working on the Mastery account. She was provided an office by Mastery at one of its schools, and given keys, an access card, and email account by Mastery. Ms. Bird also interacted regularly with Mastery’s managers, attended their meetings, and was given various administrative tasks by Mastery to perform. However, TNG paid Ms. Bird’s salary, trained her, and evaluated her performance.
During her assignment with Mastery, Ms. Bird reported that she was subjected to racial remarks by several of Mastery’s managers, and otherwise treated unequally based on race. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Four months later, Ms. Bird was removed by TNG from the Mastery account and reassigned to other clients. She was eventually terminated by TNG after becoming injured and unable to work.
Ms. Bird sued Mastery under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act for race and gender discrimination and retaliation. The District Court granted Mastery’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ms. Bird’s claims, on the grounds that Ms. Bird was not employed by Mastery. Ms. Bird appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Third Circuit rejected Ms. Bird’s argument that some “day-to-day” control by Mastery over her job tasks was sufficient to establish that she was employed by Mastery. The Court focused on evidence that Ms. Bird was hired and assigned to the job by TNG, trained, evaluated, and paid by TNG, and eventually removed from the Mastery account by TNG. The Court also noted that Mastery did not request to have Ms. Bird assigned to its account or to have her later taken off that account. Based on the totality of these facts, the Court concluded that a “modicum of control is not enough to outweigh the mound of other evidence that [TNG], not Mastery, employed her.” The Third Circuit thus affirmed summary judgment in favor of Mastery as to Ms. Bird’s claims.
While the Bird case is instructive, employers should recognize that there is no bright-line rule for determining employment status. Such questions regarding control over a person’s job often arise when companies utilize independent contractors or when they retain workers through temporary agencies. While temp agency service agreements or independent contractor agreements can be helpful in defining the nature of the relationship and degree of control, such agreements are not absolutely determinative. Businesses must exercise caution when classifying workers as contractors or non-employees, since an incorrect classification can result in liability for employment taxes, minimum wage and overtime pay violations, benefits, and penalties, as well as potential exposure under Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws. It is prudent for businesses to consult with experienced employment counsel when making these determinations.
