Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 01-1435, Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates will be announced by Justice Stevens.
Argument of Justice Stevens
Mr. Stevens: Respondent Deborah Wells was employed by a petitioner in Oregon Medical Clinic that is organized as a professional corporation.
After her termination, she brought this action against petitioner alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Petitioner moved for summary judgment asserting that was not covered by the Act because it did not have 15 or more employees.
The accuracy of that assertion depends on whether the four doctors who serve as the clinic's four director shareholders are counted as employees.
Relying on an economic reliaties test, the District Court concluded that the four director shareholders were analogous to partners in the partnership and therefore were not employees.
On appeal, the divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed holding that the use of any corporation including a professional corporation precludes an examination to determine whether the entity is in fact a partnership.
We granted certiorari and now reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
Though, the ADA does not helpfully define the term "employee", the statute says that an employee is an individual employed by an employer.
Our cases, construing that term in other context, tell us to look to common-law agency doctrine when filling the gap in the statutory text.
Particularly helpful is the common-law's definition of the master-servant relationship which focuses on the master's control over the servant.
In accord with the common-law's focus on the element of control the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has adopted specific guidelines to be considered in determining whether a director shareholder is an employee subject to a firm's control or a person who operates independently and manages a business.
We are persuaded by the EEOC's guidelines and by its focus on the common-law touchstone of control.
Accordingly, we have decided to send to case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider whether the four doctors are employees of the clinic in light of the EEOC's guidelines.
Justice Ginsburg has filed a dissenting opinion which Justice Breyer joins.
