Connection lost
Server error
Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A temporary worker sued the client company for sexual harassment. The court held the client company was a “joint employer” with the staffing agency under Title VII, adopting a new nine-factor “hybrid test” to determine employer status and finding the company could be held liable.
Legal Significance: This case formally adopts the “joint employer” doctrine for Title VII in the Fourth Circuit. It establishes a new nine-factor hybrid test for determining joint employer status, particularly for temporary staffing arrangements, clarifying that effective control can create liability despite contractual formalities.
Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Brenda Butler was hired by a temporary staffing agency, ResourceMFG, and assigned to work at a factory owned by Drive Automotive Industries (Drive). While ResourceMFG handled Butler’s pay, uniform, and had formal authority over termination, Drive determined her work schedule, provided training, and its supervisors managed her day-to-day tasks on the factory floor. Butler worked alongside regular Drive employees, performing the same duties. Butler alleged that a Drive supervisor, John Green, subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. She reported the conduct to representatives at both Drive and ResourceMFG, but no corrective action was taken. The harassment culminated when Green effectively terminated her assignment after an argument. A Drive manager then sent an email to ResourceMFG requesting Butler’s termination, which ResourceMFG subsequently formalized. Butler filed a Title VII suit against Drive. The district court granted summary judgment for Drive, concluding it was not Butler’s employer.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a client company that utilizes a temporary staffing agency be considered a “joint employer” under Title VII, and thus be liable for discrimination, if it exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of the temporary worker’s employment?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding as a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a client company that utilizes a temporary staffing agency be considered a “joint employer” under Title VII, and thus be liable for discrimination, if it exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of the temporary worker’s employment?
Conclusion
This decision establishes the governing standard in the Fourth Circuit for holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Rule
Multiple entities may be considered an individual's joint employers for Title VII Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
Legal Analysis
The Fourth Circuit first formally adopted the joint employment doctrine in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Fourth Circuit formally adopts the joint employment doctrine for Title
