Reference no: EM131714130
Rachel Juino, a volunteer firefighter, sued the Livingston Parish Fire District No. 5, a political subdivision of the state of Louisiana, claiming sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Juino claimed that she was subjected to sexual harassment multiple times by a fellow firefighter and that no disciplinary action was taken against him. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the suit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that Juino was not an "employee" within the meaning of Title VII. Under Title VII, it is illegal "for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex." Furthermore, an "employee" under Title VII is defined as "an individual employed by an employer." Because this definition is circular, the court looked to common law doctrine to help define it, and as a matter of first impression, the court adopted the threshold-remuneration test. The court reasoned that Juino did not meet the threshold for remuneration for receiving incidental benefits of $2.00 per fire/emergency call, a life insurance policy, a full firefighter's uniform and badge, firefighting and emergency response gear, and firefighting and emergency first-response training. The court also stated that providing a remedy for plaintiffs in Juino's position under Title VII was in the legislature's realm and not its own.
1. Though the court was quite clear that simply identifying workers as volunteers is insufficient to prevent Title VII application, does the name by which an employer calls its workers matter at all? In other words, does it matter at all whether the employer calls its workers volunteers or employees, or is it completely irrelevant?
2. Of the factors considered critical by the court in reaching its conclusion, which seem more critical to a determination of employment status?
3. Can you think of any public policy reasons why Title VII should be interpreted or amended to require employers to consider some or all volunteer workers as employees?