From: "Lee Kent Hempfling"
To: "BILLY SANDERS"
References:
Subject: Re: Jurisdiction does legally apply
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:07:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6231_01C3422F.5D614DE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Disposition-Notification-To: "Lee Kent Hempfling"
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_6231_01C3422F.5D614DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Please excuse me for asking a direct question sir but if all this work =
has been put forth on a case you have no intention of prosecuting then =
what is the point of the investigation? I expected that might be the =
case since I am sure your case load is quite heavy and I expected to =
persue the case legally with an attorney when it either reached the =
point where it was unable to be negotiated (if that ever happened) but =
under no circumstances was I under the impression that legal information =
from the defendant was a bad thing... If you are not going to persue =
this case at all why did you take it on? Why did you tell Ms. Thomspson =
you would be handling this case personally? Was it because you had to? I =
was under the impression that you were acting in the best interest of =
the defendant but your attitude tells me you are acting in your own best =
interest. HOW DARE YOU , a civil servant tell a defendant not to =
provide LEGAL information you either can't come up with on your own or =
do not have the ability to come up with on your own. I have no intention =
to act like a jerk here. My intention is to fulfill what the case was =
filed for. My argument is not with you. Here it is, the FIRST =
correspondence I receive from you in MONTHS about this case and you dare =
to yell at me for telling you the job is not as hard as your legal team =
thought it was? I don't understand your attack sir. I have seen nothing =
sir. So what I see is only what you have just told me. The only contact =
we have had on this case has been through your friend Trish Thompson =
also a defendant in another case. Are you dropping her's too? I will not =
ask for my right to sue, not yet. I will not stoop to attacking you. The =
case will proceed under EEOC requirements and then be back involved when =
it goes to real court. Mr. Darby understandably did not expect lip =
service. My case is thorough and already made for you. I just made the =
case for you regarding jurisdiction. And I get yelled at for helping my =
own case? Who is your supervisor?
----- Original Message -----=20
From: BILLY SANDERS=20
To: lkh@knology.net=20
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Jurisdiction does legally apply


I appreciate what you are saying but don't tell us how to investigate =
and every thing you see ain't always how it is. We will make the =
decision on our part and if you want to take this to court all you have =
to do is send me a letter requesting your Right to Sue because even if =
we have jurisdiction it is not a case we will be taking to court so if =
you want to go to court just request your right to sue.

>>> "Lee Kent Hempfling" 02/06/03 10:47AM >>>

Mr. Sanders,

Thank you for your reply. I have performed the work necessary for your =
legal department to make the correct non-intimidated judgment. It comes =
from EEOC Notice 915.002 dated 5/2/1997 and clearly defines the =
employees within the defendant's employ and

or management as qualifying under legal precedence.=20

=20

There can be NO arbitrary judgment by your legal team. Your team must =
follow the rules established by the EEOC as outlined below and I am =
surprised the legal team was either not aware of this ruling and =
regulation interpretation or failed to look it up.

=20

This entire document is available at =
http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/metropol.html .



According to this EEOC OFFICIAL DOCUMENT you must count all part time =
employees, all temporary help employees and all employees of other =
companies working with and or under the control of the same management. =
It is a cut and dried argument and LM's deceptive practices shall not =
under any circumstance impeded this procedure.

=20

Jurisdiction=20

=20

The problem seeking legal opinion from the EEOC in Lee Kent Hempfling =
vs. L.M. Communications is one of interpretation by the defendant for =
the sole purpose of eluding accountability, which is the cornerstone =
concept of the Title VII act.

=20

42 U.S.C. =A7 2000e-2. Title VII defines "employer" as "a person =
engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more =
employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks =
in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a =
person.." 42 U.S.C. =A7 2000e(b). Title VII therefore covers an employer =
who has fifteen or more employees on his payroll for at least twenty =
weeks during a given year. Once coverage is established in a given year, =
Title VII coverage will extend through the following year, even if the =
number of employees falls below the minimum.
As to what is an "employee," the statute is not limited to traditional =
definitions of employees. "Employee" includes all who "are susceptible =
to the kind of unlawful practices that Title VII was intended to =
remedy."65 Thus, Title VII may apply even if the employee is an =
independent contractor.

=20

Employees who are susceptible to the kind of unlawful practices that =
Title VII was intended to remedy include all those workers who come =
under the same management and as shown above may also even apply to an =
independent contractor.

=20

From=20

EEOC NOTICENumber 915.002 Date 5/2/97Refer to: the entire text below as =
well as this section:



I have highlighted the relevant sections in RED. Considering the =
weight of this case and the exhuberance of the defense's attempt to =
defray the charges the total employee count must include all persons in =
a 'relationship' with the employer. That would include.



FULL TIME:
Charlie Cohn

Ken French

Bob Brooks

Leslie Twigger

Denise Moseley

Dan Williams

Joel Barnes

Jim Goulsby

Nancy Sellers

Mike Allen

Lee Kent

John Majhor

Linda Logan (Grumbein)

Tom Bolt

Bobby Stagg

Lynn Martin (is an employee of his own company)

Pam the book keeper accountant



Part Time:

Trish Thompson

Stevie Byrd

Jessica Mickey

Mark Scott

Ray Turner

Tom Bolt's afternoon drive predecessor (don't remember his name)

Tom Bolt when he was part time before I left.

The Bruce engineer who was full time when I was hired and for weeks =
thereafter then contract labor.

THREE part time persons working for 98Rock.

and more



Plus:

Temporary labor

Three different receptionist persons the last who was hired to replace =
Denise Moseley

after Denise left without public application of the position.



A grand total of 31 persons qualified to meet the requirement as set =
forth in your own rules.



There can be NO argument over whether these persons were in a =
'relationship' with the employee (me) and the employor (LM =
Communications) regardless of what station they were paid for they all =
worked under the same management and under the same ownership.



By their own payroll and management processes there were no less than =
16 persons not counting myself who were directly involved FULL TIME in =
the management and administration of the station I worked for who also =
performed the same tasks for the other station. The law requires they be =
counted as one unit of employees and to stop the time consuming =
harrassment perpetrated by LM Communications. In my opinion, fines are =
due against LM Communications for dragging this process out.

=20

Consult EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated =
Enterprise and Joint Employer," May 6, 1987, and EEOC Enforcement =
Guidance No: N-917-002, "Employment Agencies," September 20, 1991, 8 FEP =
Manual (BNA) 405:6951 (Section I, C.). Such employees should be =
included in Respondent's employee count.

=20

The conclusion is obvious from this document:

=20

If the jurisdictional prerequisite is not met, determine whether the =
Respondent is integrated with another employer. See EEOC Policy =
Statement No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise and Joint =
Employer," May 6, 1987, for a discussion of how to determine whether the =
Respondent is integrated with another employer. If the Respondent is =
integrated with one or more other employers, determine whether the =
combined number of employees of the integrated employers meets or =
exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisite.=20

L.M. Communications is an entirely integrated establishment. All =
employees

Are subject to the same direct and top management.

=20

The arguments of not complying with jurisdiction are nothing but a =
ruse

To escape the law and stop further proceedings through intimidation =
and

Elongating the processing time.

=20

As the plaintiff I demand a judgment that L.M. Communications did have

During the question time period more than the total required employees =
to qualify for EEOC jurisdiction and there is NOTHING in EEOC =
documentation that

Supports otherwise.

=20

The entire document:

=20

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

EEOC NOTICENumber 915.002 Date 5/2/97 1. SUBJECT. Enforcement =
Guidance on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & Walters v. =
Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 117 S.Ct. 660 (1997). 2. =
PURPOSE. This enforcement guidance analyzes the Metropolitan decision =
and provides guidance on how to count employees when determining whether =
the Respondent satisfies the jurisdictional prerequisite for coverage =
under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 4. =
EXPIRATION DATE. As an exception to EEOC Order 205.001, Appendix B, =
Attachment 4, =A7 a(5), this Notice will remain in effect until =
rescinded or superseded. 5. ORIGINATOR. Title VII/EPA Division, =
Office of Legal Counsel 6. INSTRUCTIONS. File after =A7 605.8(b) of =
Volume II of the Compliance Manual. 7. SUBJECT MATTER. I. =
Introduction The Supreme Court has held that the "ultimate touchstone" =
in determining whether an employer has a sufficient number of employees =
to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for coverage under Title VII =
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. =A7 2000e(b), is =
"whether an employer has employment relationships with 15 or more =
individuals for each working day in 20 or more weeks during the year in =
question." Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Walters v. =
Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 117 S.Ct. 660, 666 (1997). =
The Court adopted the EEOC's position that employees should be counted =
whether or not they are actually performing work for or being paid by =
the employer on any particular day. In Metropolitan, the Court =
interpreted =A7 701(b) of Title VII, which defines a covered employer as =
one who "has fifteen or more employees for each working daily in each of =
twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar =
year.@1 The Commission has interpreted this provision to include =
employers who have an employment relationship with 15 or more employees =
for the relevant days, regardless of the daily work schedules of the =
individual employees. See EEOC Policy Guidance No: N-915-052, "Whether =
Part-time Employees Are Employees Within the Meaning of =A7 701(b) of =
Title VII and =A7 11(b) of the ADEA," April 20, 1990, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) =
405:6857, EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH) & 2167 ("part-time employees are =
counted whether they work part of each day or part of each week"). =
The method the Court adopted is often called the "payroll method" =
because "the employment relationship is most readily demonstrated by the =
individual's appearance on the employer's payroll." Id. at 663-64. =
However, the Court stressed that "what is ultimately critical is the =
existence of an employment relationship, not appearance on the =
payroll."2 Id. at 666. The Court upheld the EEOC's interpretation, =
reasoning that "an employer 'has' an employee if he maintains an =
employment relationship with that individual" on the day in question. =
Id. at 664 (emphasis added). The Court rejected Metropolitan's =
interpretation that an employer "has" an employee for a particular =
working day only when it is actually compensating the employee for that =
day. Id. at 664. The Court also disagreed with Metropolitan's =
argument that the EEOC's interpretation rendered the statutory phrase =
"for each working day" superfluous. Without the phrase, the Court said, =
it would be unclear how to count an employee who departs in the middle =
of a calendar week or an employee who departs after the end of the =
workweek, but before the end of the calendar week. Id. at 664-65. The =
Court held that "all one needs to know about a given employee for a =
given year is whether the employee started or ended employment during =
the year and, if so, when. He is counted as an employee for each =
working day after arrival and before departure." Id. at 665-66. The =
Court noted Metropolitan's argument that the EEOC's interpretation could =
produce some "strange consequences," such as counting an employee who =
works irregularly only a few days a month. Id. at 665. However, the =
Court observed that Metropolitan's approach "produces unique =
peculiarities of its own." Id. at 665. For example, by counting =
employees only on the days that they are compensated, a half-time worker =
who works every morning would be counted, while one who works on =
alternate days would not. Id. at 665. Also, Metropolitan's approach =
"would turn the coverage determination into an incredibly complex and =
expensive factual inquiry." Id. at 665. "For an employer with 15 =
employees and a 5-day workweek, the number of daily working histories =
[that would have to be examined] for [a] two year period is 7,800." Id. =
at 665. II. Charge Processing The Supreme Court's decision =
accords with the longstanding Commission position that all workers who =
have an ongoing employment relationship with an employer are counted for =
purposes of determining coverage.3 The phrase "for each working day" =
means simply that an employee is counted as an employee for each working =
day starting on the day that the employment relationship begins and =
ending on the last day of the employment relationship.4 There should be =
fewer disputes about the number of employees in an employer's workforce =
because the Court has made the rules clear and simple. The Commission =
will assume in the first instance that all individuals who perform work =
for the Respondent are employees. However, if a Respondent alleges that =
some individuals are not employees and/or alleges that it has fewer than =
the jurisdictional prerequisite of 15 employees for Title VII and ADA =
coverage or 20 employees for ADEA coverage, it will be necessary to =
obtain and evaluate additional information. A. Information to Be =
Requested from Respondents Who Claim to Fall Below the Jurisdictional =
Thresholds Since the information needed will vary from case to case, =
information requests should be tailored to address the disputed facts. =
Typically, it will be most effective to focus on records about those =
workers whose employment status or dates of employment are in dispute. =
In other situations, it will be more efficient to obtain records of all =
workers. The types of records that should be sought will typically =
include: 1. Payroll records and employment contracts relating to =
relevant workers for the year of and the year preceding the alleged =
adverse employment action. Include contracts that involve workers =
provided by temporary employment agencies, contract firms, and other =
types of staffing firms. For example, include maintenance workers and =
security personnel assigned by a contract firm and temporary clerical =
personnel assigned by a temporary employment agency. 2. Personnel, =
payroll and/or contract documents that reflect the dates that the =
disputed workers began and/or ended their employment relationship with =
the Respondent. B. Determining Who Qualifies as an Employee 1. =
Evaluate whether the worker(s) whose status is disputed are employees =
or are, instead, independent contractors or otherwise not employees. To =
make this determination, consult EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: N-915, =
"Title VII Coverage of Independent Contractors and Independent =
Businesses," September 4, 1987; and EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: =
N-915.007, "Whether Individuals Who Are Partners, Officers, Directors, =
or Major Shareholders in Organizations May Be Considered Employees Under =
Title VII, ADEA, and the EPA," July 14, 1987. * Example: The =
Respondent is a publishing company with fourteen employees. It has =
recently installed a new computer system in its office. The Respondent =
contracted with an expert computer technician (worker) to perform a =
myriad of duties relating to the installation of, and training on, the =
new system. The worker's contract will expire in six months. The =
Respondent alleges that this worker is an independent contractor, and =
not an employee. The Respondent does not supervise the worker or control =
the details of how she performs her job. The worker is engaged in a =
distinct occupation which requires special knowledge and expertise. The =
contract, and thus the relationship with the Respondent, will end at a =
specified time. The worker is not paid by the hour, but paid to =
complete the specific job. In this case, the worker would be found to be =
an independent contractor and not counted as an employee. 2. =
Determine whether the employees have an employment relationship with the =
Respondent. Some employees who perform work for the Respondent may be =
employees of other businesses, such as temporary employment agencies or =
contract firms, but may also be employees of the Respondent. Consult =
EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise =
and Joint Employer," May 6, 1987, and EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: =
N-917-002, "Employment Agencies," September 20, 1991, 8 FEP Manual (BNA) =
405:6951 (Section I, C.). Such employees should be included in =
Respondent's employee count. * Example: A temporary employment =
agency hires, pays, and assigns legal secretaries to the Respondent's =
law firm. The Respondent supervises, establishes work schedules, and =
assigns duties to the secretaries. If the Respondent is dissatisfied =
with any secretary, it can require the agency to remove him/her. In =
this case, the agency and the Respondent exercise sufficient control =
over the secretaries to both be deemed their employer. The secretaries =
are counted as employees of both the Respondent and the agency. C. =
Counting the Employees The next step is to count the employees. The =
investigator should do the following: 1. Determine the first and =
last day of the Respondent's workweek. * Example: The Respondent is =
a clothing store. The store is open Monday through Saturday. Every day =
that the Respondent has employees scheduled to work is a working day for =
the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent's workweek is Monday through =
Saturday. 2. If an employee began employment during either year in =
question, that employee is counted as an employee for each working day =
after arrival. For example, if an employee started work on a Friday, =
that employee would be counted as an employee on that Friday and =
thereafter. 3. If an employee ended employment during either year =
in question, that employee is not counted as an employee after his/her =
departure. For example, if an employee ends his/her employment on =
Wednesday, (s)he is counted as an employee up to and including =
Wednesday, but (s)he is not counted after Wednesday. * Example: If =
an employer's workweek is Monday through Friday and during one of the =
weeks examined, it had fourteen employees plus Employee A who ended his =
employment on Tuesday and Employee B who started her employment on =
Wednesday of the same week, then the employer has fifteen employees for =
each working day for that workweek. * Example: If an employer's =
workweek is Monday through Friday and during one of the weeks examined, =
it had fourteen employees plus Employee A who ended his employment on =
Tuesday and Employee B who started her employment on Thursday of the =
same week, the employer did not have fifteen employees for each working =
day of that workweek because it only had employment relationships with =
fourteen employees on Wednesday. 4. To determine the employee =
count for each week examined in the relevant years: a) calculate the =
number of workers who were on the payroll; b) subtract any workers who =
were on the payroll, but were not employees; and 3) add any workers who =
were not on the payroll, but who qualified as employees of the =
Respondent. Do not count any week where the Respondent had employment =
relationships with fewer than the jurisdictional prerequisite of 15 =
employees for Title VII and ADA coverage, or 20 employees for ADEA =
coverage, for each working day of a particular week. If the =
jurisdictional prerequisite is not met, determine whether the Respondent =
is integrated with another employer. See EEOC Policy Statement No: =
N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise and Joint Employer," May 6, =
1987, for a discussion of how to determine whether the Respondent is =
integrated with another employer. If the Respondent is integrated with =
one or more other employers, determine whether the combined number of =
employees of the integrated employers meets or exceeds the =
jurisdictional prerequisite. May 2, 1997 -S- =
_____________ =
__________________________________Date Gilbert F. =
Casellas Chairman =
1. The Court's analysis also applies =
to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the =
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which have similar =
statutory language. Section 101(5)(A) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. =A7 =
12111(5)(A), defines an employer as one who "has fifteen or more =
employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks =
in the current or preceding calendar year." Section 11(b) of the ADEA, =
29 U.S.C. 630(b), defines an employer as one who "has twenty or more =
employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks =
in the current or preceding calendar year." 2. The Court noted that =
an individual who was on the payroll, but who was not an "employee" =
under traditional agency principles, would not be counted. Id. at 666. =
The converse is also true. An individual who has two joint employers =
would be counted as an employee of both employers even though the =
employee may be on the payroll of only one. See EEOC Enforcement =
Guidance No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise and Joint =
Employer," May 6, 1987. 3. EEOC Compliance Manual, =A7 605.8(b)(2), =
concerning the counting of part-time and temporary employees, was =
clarified by the Enforcement Guidance on Part-time Employees. 4. The =
phrase "in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or =
preceding calendar year" means that the employer must have the =
requisite number of employees for twenty or more calendar weeks in =
either the current or preceding calendar year. The weeks need not be =
consecutive. EEOC Compliance Manual, Volume II, =A7 605.8(b).=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

This page was last modified on July 6, 2000.=20

Return to Home Page

=20

----- Original Message -----=20
From: BILLY SANDERS=20
To: lkh@knology.net=20
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: W-2 Not received


I can't help with you with the W-2 situation and it is beginning to =
appear that we don't have jurisdiction over L M Communication. My legal =
dept is looking at their info now and will advise me and I will let you =
all know.


------=_NextPart_000_6231_01C3422F.5D614DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



charset=3Diso-8859-1">



2px"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
Please excuse me for asking a direct =
question sir=20
but if all this work has been put forth on a case you have no intention =
of=20
prosecuting then what is the point of the investigation? I expected that =
might=20
be the case since I am sure your case load is quite heavy and I expected =
to=20
persue the case legally with an attorney when it either reached the =
point where=20
it was unable to be negotiated (if that ever happened) but under no=20
circumstances was I under the impression that legal information from the =

defendant was a bad thing... If you are not going to persue this case at =
all why=20
did you take it on? Why did you tell Ms. Thomspson you would be handling =
this=20
case personally? Was it because you had to? I was under the =
impression that=20
you were acting in the best interest of the defendant but your attitude =
tells me=20
you are acting in your own best interest.  HOW DARE YOU , a civil =
servant=20
tell a defendant not to provide LEGAL information you either can't come =
up with=20
on your own or do not have the ability to come up with on your own. I =
have no=20
intention to act like a jerk here. My intention is to fulfill what the =
case was=20
filed for. My argument is not with you. Here it is, the FIRST =
correspondence I=20
receive from you in MONTHS about this case and you dare to yell at me =
for=20
telling you the job is not as hard as your legal team thought it was? I =
don't=20
understand your attack sir.  I have seen nothing sir. So what I see =
is only=20
what you have just told me. The only contact we have had on this case =
has been=20
through your friend Trish Thompson also a defendant in another case. Are =
you=20
dropping her's too? I will not ask for my right to sue, not yet. I will =
not=20
stoop to attacking you. The case will proceed under EEOC requirements =
and then=20
be back involved when it goes to real court. Mr. Darby understandably =
did not=20
expect lip service. My case is thorough and already made for you. I just =
made=20
the case for you regarding jurisdiction. And I get yelled at for helping =
my own=20
case? Who is your supervisor?

style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----

style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black">From:=20
href=3D"mailto:BILLY.SANDERS@EEOC.GOV">BILLY=20
SANDERS

Sent: Thursday, February 06, =
2003 10:50=20
AM

Subject: Re: Jurisdiction does =
legally=20
apply


I appreciate what you are saying but don't tell us how =
to=20
investigate and every thing you see ain't always how it is. We will =
make the=20
decision on our part and if you want to take this to court all you =
have to do=20
is send me a letter requesting your Right to Sue because even if we =
have=20
jurisdiction it is not a case we will be taking to court so if you =
want to go=20
to court just request your right to sue.

>>> "Lee Kent =

Hempfling" <lkh@knology.net> 02/06/03 10:47AM =
>>>
face=3D"MS Shell Dlg" size=3D1>

style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Mr. Sanders,


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Thank you for your reply. I have performed =
the work=20
necessary for your legal department to make the correct =
non-intimidated=20
judgment. It comes from EEOC Notice 915.002 dated 5/2/1997 and clearly =
defines=20
the employees within the defendant=92s employ =
and


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">or management as qualifying under legal =
precedence.=20


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>There can be NO arbitrary judgment by your legal team. =
Your team=20
must follow the rules established by the EEOC as outlined below and I =
am=20
surprised the legal team was either not aware of this ruling and =
regulation=20
interpretation or failed to look it up.


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">This entire document is available at =
href=3D"http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/metropol.html">New Roman"=20
color=3D#551a8b>http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/metropol.html
face=3D"Times New Roman"> .


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">According to this EEOC OFFICIAL DOCUMENT you =
must count=20
all part time employees, all temporary help employees and all =
employees of=20
other companies working with and or under the control of the same =
management.=20
It is a cut and dried argument and LM's deceptive practices shall not =
under=20
any circumstance impeded this procedure.


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Jurisdiction


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">The problem seeking legal opinion from the =
EEOC in Lee=20
Kent Hempfling vs. L.M. Communications is one of interpretation by the =

defendant for the sole purpose of eluding accountability, which is the =

cornerstone concept of the Title VII act.


face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #660000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> color=3D#000000>42 U.S.C. =A7 2000e-2. Title VII defines "employer" as =
"a person=20
engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more =
employees=20
for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the =
current=20
or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person=85." 42 =
U.S.C. =A7=20
2000e(b). Title VII therefore covers an employer who has fifteen or =
more=20
employees on his payroll for at least twenty weeks during a given =
year. Once=20
coverage is established in a given year, Title VII coverage will =
extend=20
through the following year, even if the number of employees falls =
below the=20
minimum.
As to what is an "employee," the statute is not limited to =

traditional definitions of employees. "Employee" includes all who "are =

susceptible to the kind of unlawful practices that Title VII was =
intended to=20
remedy."65 Thus, Title VII may apply even if the employee is an =
independent=20
contractor.


style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #660000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> color=3D#000000> 


style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #660000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> color=3D#000000>Employees who are susceptible to the kind of unlawful =
practices=20
that Title VII was intended to remedy include all those workers who =
come under=20
the same management and as shown above may also even apply to an =
independent=20
contractor.


style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #660000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> color=3D#000000> 


style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #660000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> color=3D#000000>From 

style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">EEOC NOTICE
style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Number 915.002 
style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Date 5/2/97

face=3D"Times New Roman">Refer to: the =
entire text=20
below as well as this section:


face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


face=3D"Times New Roman">I have highlighted the =
relevant=20
sections in RED. color=3D#0000ff>Considering the weight of this case and the =
color=3D#0000ff>exhuberance of the defense's attempt to defray the =
charges the=20
total employee count must include all persons in a 'relationship' with =
the=20
employer. That would include.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>FULL TIME:
Charlie Cohn


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Ken French


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Bob Brooks


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Leslie Twigger


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Denise Moseley


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Dan Williams


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Joel Barnes


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Jim Goulsby


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Nancy Sellers


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Mike Allen


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Lee Kent


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>John Majhor


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Linda Logan (Grumbein)


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Tom Bolt


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Bobby Stagg


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Lynn Martin (is an employee of his own =
company)


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Pam the book keeper accountant


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Part Time:


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Trish Thompson


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Stevie Byrd


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Jessica Mickey


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Mark Scott


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Ray Turner


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Tom Bolt's afternoon drive predecessor (don't remember =
his=20
name)


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Tom Bolt when he was part time before I =
left.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>The Bruce engineer who was full time when I was hired =
and for=20
weeks thereafter then contract labor.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>THREE part time persons working for 98Rock.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>and more


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Plus:


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Temporary labor


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>Three different receptionist persons the last who was =
hired to=20
replace Denise Moseley


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>after Denise left without public application of the=20
position.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>A grand total of  31 persons qualified to meet =
the=20
requirement as set forth in your own rules.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>There can be NO argument over whether these persons =
were in a=20
'relationship' with the employee (me) and the employor (LM =
Communications)=20
regardless of what station they were paid for they all worked under =
the same=20
management and under the same ownership.


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff> 


New Roman"=20
color=3D#0000ff>By their own payroll and management processes there =
were no less=20
than 16 persons not counting myself who were directly involved FULL =
TIME in=20
the management and administration of the station I worked for who also =

performed the same tasks for the other station. The law requires they =
be=20
counted as one unit of employees and to stop the time consuming =
harrassment=20
perpetrated by LM Communications. In my opinion, fines are due against =
LM=20
Communications for dragging this process out.


face=3D"Times New Roman"> 

style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Consult EEOC Enforcement =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Guidance No: N-915, "Concepts =

of Integrated Enterprise and Joint =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Employer," May 6, 1987, and =

EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: =

N-917-
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>002, "Employment Agencies," =

September 20, 1991, 8 FEP Manual =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>(BNA) 405:6951 (Section I, =

C.).  Such employees =

should be

style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Roman">included in=20
Respondent's employee count.


style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN"> face=3D"Times New Roman">The conclusion is obvious from this=20
document:


style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 

style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">If the jurisdictional prerequisite is not met, determine =

whether 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the Respondent is integrated =

with another employer. See EEOC =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Policy Statement No: N-915, =

"Concepts of Integrated Enterprise =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>and Joint Employer," May 6, =

1987, for a discussion of how to =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>determine whether the =

Respondent is integrated with another =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>employer.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  If the Respondent is =

integrated with one or more other =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>employers, determine whether =

the combined number of employees of =

0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the integrated employers meets =

or exceeds the jurisdictional 
style=3D"MARGIN: 12pt 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">prerequisite.

face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">L.M. Communications is an entirely integrated =

establishment. All employees


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Are subject to the same direct and top=20
management.


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">The arguments of not complying with =
jurisdiction are=20
nothing but a ruse


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">To escape the law and stop further =
proceedings through=20
intimidation and


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Elongating the processing=20
time.


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">As the plaintiff I demand a judgment that =
L.M.=20
Communications did have


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">During the question time period more than the =
total=20
required employees to qualify for EEOC jurisdiction and there is =
NOTHING in=20
EEOC documentation that


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">Supports =
otherwise.


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


style=3D"COLOR: blue"> face=3D"Times New Roman">The entire =
document:


face=3D"Times New Roman"> 


MS"> lang=3DEN style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">The U.S. Equal Employment =
Opportunity=20
Commission style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">


TEXT-ALIGN: center"=20
align=3Dcenter> face=3D"Arial Unicode MS"> 

lang=3DEN style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">face=3D"Arial Unicode MS">EEOC =

NOTICE
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Number 915.002 =

24pt">size=3D2>Date =

5/2/97
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>1.yes">     SUBJECT.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Enforcement Guidance on Equal =

Employment 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Opportunity Commission & =

Walters v. Metropolitan Educational =

24pt">size=3D2>Enterprises, Inc., 117 S.Ct. =

660 (1997).
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>2.yes">     PURPOSE.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  This enforcement guidance =

analyzes the 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Metropolitan decision and =

provides guidance on how to count =

24pt">size=3D2>employees when determining =

whether the Respondent satisfies the =

24pt">size=3D2>jurisdictional prerequisite for =

coverage under Title VII, the 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">ADA, and the ADEA. =

24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>3.yes">     EFFECTIVE =

DATE.
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>4.yes">     EXPIRATION DATE.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  As an exception to EEOC Order =

205.001, 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Appendix B, Attachment 4, =A7 =

a(5), this Notice will remain in =

24pt">size=3D2>effect until rescinded or =

superseded.
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>5.yes">     ORIGINATOR.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Title VII/EPA Division, Office =

of Legal 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS">Counsel
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>6.yes">     INSTRUCTIONS.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  File after =A7 605.8(b) of =

Volume II of the 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Compliance Manual. =

24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>7.yes">     SUBJECT =

MATTER.
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>I.yes">     =

Introduction
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">The Supreme Court has held that the "ultimate touchstone" in =

24pt">size=3D2>determining whether an employer =

has a sufficient number of 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">employees to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for =

coverage 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>under Title VII of the Civil =

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 =

24pt">size=3D2>U.S.C. =A7 2000e(b), is =

"whether an employer has employment =

24pt">size=3D2>relationships with 15 or more =

individuals for each working day in =

24pt">size=3D2>20 or more weeks during the =

year in question." Equal Employment =

24pt">size=3D2>Opportunity Commission and =

Walters v. Metropolitan Educational =

24pt">size=3D2>Enterprises, Inc., 117 S.Ct. =

660, 666 (1997).  The =

Court adopted 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">the EEOC's position that employees should be counted whether =

or 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>not they are actually =

performing work for or being paid by the =

24pt">size=3D2>employer on any particular day. =

24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>In Metropolitan, the Court =

interpreted =A7 701(b) of Title VII, =

24pt">size=3D2>which defines a covered =

employer as one who "has fifteen or more =

24pt">size=3D2>employees for each working =

daily in each of twenty or more =

24pt">size=3D2>calendar weeks in the current =

or preceding calendar year.@1  =

The 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Commission has interpreted this =

provision to include employers =

24pt">size=3D2>who have an employment =

relationship with 15 or more employees for =

24pt">size=3D2>the relevant days, regardless =

of the daily work schedules of the =

24pt">size=3D2>individual employees.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  See EEOC Policy Guidance No: =

N-915-052, 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>"Whether Part-time Employees =

Are Employees Within the Meaning of =

24pt">size=3D2>=A7 701(b) of Title VII and =A7 =

11(b) of the ADEA," April 20, 1990, 8 =

24pt">size=3D2>FEP Manual (BNA) 405:6857, EEOC =

Compliance Manual (CCH) & 2167 =

24pt">size=3D2>("part-time employees are =

counted whether they work part of each =

24pt">size=3D2>day or part of each =

week").yes">       =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The method the Court adopted is =

often called the "payroll method" =

24pt">size=3D2>because "the employment =

relationship is most readily demonstrated =

24pt">size=3D2>by the individual's appearance =

on the employer's payroll." Id. at =

24pt">size=3D2>663-64.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  However, the Court stressed =

that "what is ultimately 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">critical is the existence of an employment relationship, not =

24pt">size=3D2>appearance on the payroll."2 =

Id. at 666.  The Court =

upheld the 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>EEOC's interpretation, =

reasoning that "an employer 'has' an =

24pt">size=3D2>employee if he maintains an =

employment relationship with that =

24pt">size=3D2>individual" on the day in =

question. Id. at 664 (emphasis added).yes">  
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">The Court rejected Metropolitan's interpretation that an =

employer 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>"has" an employee for a =

particular working day only when it is =

24pt">size=3D2>actually compensating the =

employee for that day. Id. at 664.yes">   
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">The Court also disagreed with Metropolitan's argument that =

the 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>EEOC's interpretation rendered =

the statutory phrase "for each =

24pt">size=3D2>working day" superfluous.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Without the phrase, the Court =

said, it 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>would be unclear how to count =

an employee who departs in the =

24pt">size=3D2>middle of a calendar week or an =

employee who departs after the =

24pt">size=3D2>end of the workweek, but before =

the end of the calendar week. Id. =

24pt">size=3D2>at 664-65.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  The Court held that "all one =

needs to know about a 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">given employee for a given year is whether the employee =

started 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>or ended employment during the =

year and, if so, when.  He =

is 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>counted as an employee for each =

working day after arrival and 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">before departure." Id. at =

665-66.
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The Court noted Metropolitan's =

argument that the EEOC's 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">interpretation could produce some "strange consequences," =

such as 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>counting an employee who works =

irregularly only a few days a 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">month. Id. at 665.  =

However, the Court observed that =

24pt">size=3D2>Metropolitan's approach =

"produces unique peculiarities of its =

24pt">size=3D2>own." Id. at 665.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  For example, by counting =

employees only on the 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">days that they are compensated, a half-time worker who works =

24pt">size=3D2>every morning would be counted, =

while one who works on alternate =

24pt">size=3D2>days would not. Id. at =

665.  Also, Metropolitan's =

approach "would 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">turn the coverage determination into an incredibly complex =

and 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>expensive factual =

inquiry."  Id. at =

665.  "For an employer =

with 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>15 employees and a 5-day =

workweek, the number of daily working =

24pt">size=3D2>histories [that would have to =

be examined] for [a] two year 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">period is 7,800." Id. at 665.yes">  
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">II.yes">     Charge =

Processing
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The Supreme Court's decision =

accords with the longstanding 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Commission position that all workers who have an ongoing =

24pt">size=3D2>employment relationship with an =

employer are counted for purposes =

24pt">size=3D2>of determining coverage.3style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  The phrase "for each working =

day" 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>means simply that an employee =

is counted as an employee for each =

24pt">size=3D2>working day starting on the day =

that the employment relationship =

24pt">size=3D2>begins and ending on the last =

day of the employment 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">relationship.4 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">There should be fewer disputes about the number of employees =

in 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>an employer's workforce because =

the Court has made the rules 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">clear and simple.  =

The Commission will assume in the first =

24pt">size=3D2>instance that all individuals =

who perform work for the Respondent =

24pt">size=3D2>are employees.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  However, if a Respondent =

alleges that some 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">individuals are not employees and/or alleges that it has =

fewer 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>than the jurisdictional =

prerequisite of 15 employees for Title =

24pt">size=3D2>VII and ADA coverage or 20 =

employees for ADEA coverage, it will =

24pt">size=3D2>be necessary to obtain and =

evaluate additional information. =

24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>A.yes">     Information to Be Requested from =

Respondents Who Claim to 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Fall Below the Jurisdictional =

Thresholds
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Since the information needed =

will vary from case to case, 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">information requests should be tailored to address the =

disputed 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>facts.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Typically, it will be most =

effective to focus on records 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">about those workers whose employment status or dates of =

24pt">size=3D2>employment are in dispute.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  In other situations, it will =

be more 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>efficient to obtain records of =

all workers.  The types of =

records 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>that should be sought will =

typically include: 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">1.yes">      Payroll records and =

employment contracts relating to =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>relevant =

workers for the year of and the year preceding the =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>alleged =

adverse employment action.  =

Include contracts that =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>involve =

workers provided by temporary employment agencies, =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>contract =

firms, and other types of staffing firms.yes">  For example, =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>include =

maintenance workers and security personnel assigned by a =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>contract =

firm and temporary clerical personnel assigned by a =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>temporary =

employment agency.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">2.yes">     Personnel, payroll and/or contract =

documents that reflect 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">theyes">  dates that the disputed workers began and/or ended =

their 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>employment relationship with the =

Respondent.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">color=3D#ff0000> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">B.yes">     Determining Who Qualifies as an =

Employee
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">1.     =

Evaluate whether the worker(s) whose status is disputed =

24pt">size=3D2>areyes">  employees or are, instead, independent contractors or =

24pt">size=3D2>otherwise not employees.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  To make this determination, =

consult  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: =

N-915, "Title VII Coverage of 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Independent Contractors and Independent Businesses," =

September 4, 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>1987; and EEOC Enforcement =

Guidance No: N-915.007, "Whether =

24pt">size=3D2>Individuals Who Are Partners, =

Officers, Directors, or Major 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Shareholders in Organizations May Be Considered Employees =

Under 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Title VII, ADEA, and the EPA," =

July 14, 1987.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">*     =

Example: The Respondent is a publishing company with =

24pt">size=3D2>fourteen employees. It has =

recently installed a new computer =

24pt">size=3D2>system in its office. The =

Respondent contracted with an expert =

24pt">size=3D2>computer technician (worker) to =

perform a myriad of duties 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">relating to the installation of, and training on, the new =

system. 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The worker's contract will =

expire in six months. The Respondent =

24pt">size=3D2>alleges that this worker is an =

independent contractor, and not an =

24pt">size=3D2>employee. The Respondent does =

not supervise the worker or control =

24pt">size=3D2>the details of how she performs =

her job. The worker is engaged in =

24pt">size=3D2>a distinct occupation which =

requires special knowledge and =

24pt">size=3D2>expertise. The contract, and =

thus the relationship with the =

24pt">size=3D2>Respondent, will end at a =

specified time.  The =

worker is not paid 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">by the hour, but paid to complete the specific job. In this =

case, 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the worker would be found to be =

an independent contractor and not =

24pt">size=3D2>counted as an =

employee.
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>2.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">      =

Determine whether the employees have an employment =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>relationship with the Respondent.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Some employees who perform =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>work for =

the Respondent may be employees of other businesses, =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>such as =

temporary employment agencies or contract firms, but may =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>also be =

employees of the Respondent.  =

Consult EEOC Enforcement =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Guidance =

No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise and Joint =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>Employer," May 6, 1987, and EEOC Enforcement Guidance =

No: N-917-
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">002, "Employment Agencies," September =

20, 1991, 8 FEP Manual 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">(BNA) 405:6951 (Section I, C.).style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  Such employees should be =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>included =

in Respondent's employee count.yes">    =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>*yes">     Example: A temporary employment =

agency hires, pays, and 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">assigns legal secretaries to the Respondent's law firm.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  The =

24pt">size=3D2>Respondent supervises, =

establishes work schedules, and assigns =

24pt">size=3D2>duties to the secretaries. If =

the Respondent is dissatisfied with =

24pt">size=3D2>any secretary, it can require =

the agency to remove him/her.  =

In 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>this case, the agency and the =

Respondent exercise sufficient =

24pt">size=3D2>control over the secretaries to =

both be deemed their employer.  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The secretaries are counted as =

employees of both the Respondent =

24pt">size=3D2>and the agency.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>C.yes">     Counting the =

Employees
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The next step is to count the =

employees.  The =

investigator should 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">do the following:
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">1.     =

Determine the first and last day of the Respondent's =

24pt">size=3D2>MS">workweek.
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>*yes">     Example: The Respondent is a =

clothing store. The store is 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">open Monday through Saturday. Every day that the Respondent =

has 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>employees scheduled to work is =

a working day for the Respondent. =

24pt">size=3D2>Accordingly, the Respondent's =

workweek is Monday through 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Saturday.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">2.     =

If an employee began employment during either year in =

24pt">size=3D2>question, that employee is =

counted as an employee for each =

24pt">size=3D2>working day after arrival.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  For example, if an employee =

started 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>work on a Friday, that employee =

would be counted as an employee =

24pt">size=3D2>on that Friday and =

thereafter.
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>yes">   
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">3.     =

If an employee ended employment during either year in =

24pt">size=3D2>question, that employee is not =

counted as an employee after 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">his/her departure.  =

For example, if an employee ends his/her =

24pt">size=3D2>employment on Wednesday, (s)he =

is counted as an employee up to =

24pt">size=3D2>and including Wednesday, but =

(s)he is not counted after 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Wednesday.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">*     =

Example: If an employer's workweek is Monday through Friday =

24pt">size=3D2>and during one of the weeks =

examined, it had fourteen employees =

24pt">size=3D2>plus Employee A who ended his =

employment on Tuesday and Employee =

24pt">size=3D2>B who started her employment on =

Wednesday of the same week, then =

24pt">size=3D2>the employer has fifteen =

employees for each working day for that =

24pt">size=3D2>workweek.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>*yes">     Example: If an employer's workweek =

is Monday through Friday 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">and during one of the weeks examined, it had fourteen =

employees 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>plus Employee A who ended his =

employment on Tuesday and Employee =

24pt">size=3D2>B who started her employment on =

Thursday of the same week, the =

24pt">size=3D2>employer did not have fifteen =

employees for each working day of =

24pt">size=3D2>that workweek because it only =

had employment relationships with =

24pt">size=3D2>fourteen employees on =

Wednesday.  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>4.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">     To determine =

the employee count for each week examined in =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the =

relevant years: a) calculate the number of workers who were =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>on the =

payroll; b) subtract any workers who were on the payroll, =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>but were =

not employees; and 3) add any workers who were not on =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the =

payroll, but who qualified as employees of the Respondent. Do =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>not count =

any week where the Respondent had employment =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>relationships with fewer than the jurisdictional =

prerequisite of 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">15 employees for Title VII and ADA =

coverage, or 20 employees for =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>ADEA =

coverage, for each working day of a particular week.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">   =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>If the =

jurisdictional prerequisite is not met, determine whether =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the =

Respondent is integrated with another employer. See EEOC =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Policy =

Statement No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated Enterprise =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>and Joint =

Employer," May 6, 1987, for a discussion of how to =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>determine =

whether the Respondent is integrated with another =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>employer.  =

If the Respondent is integrated with one or more other =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>employers, determine whether the combined number of =

employees of 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">the integrated employers meets or =

exceeds the jurisdictional =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>color=3D#ff0000>prerequisite.>
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">May 2, 1997yes">           &n=

bsp;         -S-style=3D"mso-spacerun: =

yes">           &n=

bsp;           &nb=

sp;       =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>_____________style=3D"mso-spacerun: =

yes">         =

__________________________________=

style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">Dateyes">           &n=

bsp;      Gilbert F. Casellasstyle=3D"mso-spacerun: =

yes">            =

yes">           &n=

bsp;  
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">yes">           &n=

bsp;          Ch=

airmanyes">           &n=

bsp;           &nb=

sp;           &nbs=

p;  
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">1.     =

The Court's analysis also applies to the Age =

24pt">size=3D2>Discrimination in Employment =

Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Americans =

24pt">size=3D2>with Disabilities Act of 1990 =

(ADA), which have 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">similar statutory language.yes">  Section 101(5)(A) of the ADA, 42 =

24pt">size=3D2>U.S.C. =A7 12111(5)(A), defines =

an employer as one who "has fifteen =

24pt">size=3D2>or more employees for each =

working day in each of twenty or more =

24pt">size=3D2>calendar weeks in the current =

or preceding calendar year."  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>Section 11(b) of the ADEA, 29 =

U.S.C. 630(b), defines an employer =

24pt">size=3D2>as one who "has twenty or more =

employees for each working day in =

24pt">size=3D2>each of twenty or more calendar =

weeks in the current or preceding =

24pt">size=3D2>calendar =

year."
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>2.yes">     The Court noted that an individual =

who was on the payroll, 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">but who was not an "employee" under traditional agency =

24pt">size=3D2>principles, would not be =

counted.  Id. at 666.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  The converse is =

24pt">size=3D2>also true.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  An individual who has two =

joint employers would be 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">counted as an employee of both employers even though the =

employee 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>may be on the payroll of only =

one.  See EEOC Enforcement =

Guidance 
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>No: N-915, "Concepts of =

Integrated Enterprise and Joint =

24pt">size=3D2>Employer," May 6, =

1987.
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 
0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>3.yes">     EEOC Compliance Manual, =A7 =

605.8(b)(2), concerning the 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">counting of part-time and temporary employees, was clarified =

by 
0pt 24pt">size=3D2>the Enforcement Guidance on =

Part-time Employees.
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS"> 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">4.     =

The phrase "in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in =

24pt">size=3D2>the current or preceding =

calendar year" means that the employer =

24pt">size=3D2>must have thestyle=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  requisite number of employees =

for twenty or more 
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">calendar weeks in either the current or preceding calendar =

year.  =

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>The weeks need not be =

consecutive. EEOC Compliance Manual, Volume =

24pt">size=3D2>II, =A7 =

605.8(b).
12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>MS"> 


  
center"=20

  align=3Dcenter>  face=3D"Arial Unicode MS" size=3D2>

  


  


  
  face=3D"Times New Roman">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">This=20

  page was last modified on July 6, 2000.  style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN"> 


  
  style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">web site"=20

  href=3D"http://www.eeoc.gov/index.html">  style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none">  face=3D"Times New Roman">3DHome=20  src=3D"cid:002c01c2cdf7$147df350$f9c2fea9@USSEnterprise" width=3D40 =

border=3D0=20

  v:shapes=3D"_x0000_i1027">  title=3D"Link to home page of EEOC web site"=20

  href=3D"http://www.eeoc.gov/index.html">MS">Return to=20

  Home Page


  
  face=3D"Times New Roman"> 

style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----

style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black">From:=20
href=3D"mailto:BILLY.SANDERS@EEOC.GOV">BILLY=20
SANDERS

Sent: Thursday, February 06, =
2003 8:49=20
AM

Subject: Re: W-2 Not =
received


I can't help with you with the W-2 =
situation and=20
it is beginning to appear that we don't have jurisdiction over L M=20
Communication. My legal dept is looking at their info now and will =
advise me=20
and I will let you all=20
know.



------=_NextPart_000_6231_01C3422F.5D614DE0--