September 15, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
September 15, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the Western District of Kentucky denied without prejudice two early summary-judgment motions filed by Hardin County Habitat for Humanity (“HCHFH”) and Kentucky Habitat for Humanity (“Kentucky Habitat”). The defendants argued they were not “employers” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA) because neither entity employed fifteen or more individuals, and because they were separate organizations sharing only branding and mission. The court held that the plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) affidavits demonstrated a need for targeted discovery on employee counts and the nature of the relationship between the entities and therefore concluded that summary judgment would be premature.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff began working at Hardin County Habitat for Humanity through an Amazon Community Together placement and later accepted permanent employment with HCHFH. She alleged that HCHFH accommodated mobility-related limitations until a change in supervision, after which she alleged she faced hostility and was ultimately terminated. She asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims under the ADA and KCRA, plus a Kentucky wage-and-hour claim for the day of her termination.
Both defendants moved for summary judgment before discovery had begun. They asserted they did not meet the ADA’s and KCRA’s fifteen-employee threshold and that they were separate entities with distinct governance, operations, and personnel. Kentucky Habitat relied primarily on an affidavit from its executive director stating she was its only employee. HCHFH submitted payroll records, by-laws, Secretary of State filings, and documents describing its corporate structure.
The plaintiff responded by filing two Rule 56(d) affidavits and propounding written discovery. She explained that she had not yet received interrogatory responses, personnel records, organizational documents, or materials describing the relationship between the two Habitat entities, and she requested an opportunity to obtain information that might bear on employer status, joint-employer theories, and integrated-enterprise considerations. The court’s scheduling order set discovery to continue until March 2026, long after the defendants filed their motions.
Decision
The court denied both motions without prejudice, concluding that summary judgment on employer status would be premature. The court found that the plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) affidavits satisfied the rule’s technical requirements by identifying specific categories of documents—organizational charts, personnel files, by-laws, handbooks, agreements between the Habitat entities, communications, and board-related information—and explaining how the materials might inform the employer-status analysis.
Judge Jennings evaluated the request under the Sixth Circuit’s Plott factors and found that four of the five factors favored additional discovery. The court noted that the motions were filed very early in the case, before responses to written discovery had been received, and that employee counts, governance structures, and inter-entity relationships were central to determining ADA and KCRA coverage. The court observed that documents relating to corporate hierarchy, board roles, and shared operational practices “could materially influence” the determination of whether the Habitat entities should be treated as joint employers or integrated employers for purposes of both statutes.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff acted diligently by serving discovery requests immediately after the Rule 26(f) meeting and that some of the requested materials were produced only after summary-judgment briefing had begun. The court noted that employer-status issues are often fact-dependent and that the plaintiff was entitled to examine the number of individuals performing work, the roles of directors and volunteers, and the functional relationship between the two Habitat entities before responding to dispositive motions.
Because additional discovery was warranted and because the record was not sufficiently developed to determine employer status, the court denied the motions without prejudice and directed that any renewed summary-judgment motions be filed after the close of discovery.
Looking Forward
This decision may provide guidance for employers—including franchisors, affiliated nonprofits, and multi-entity organizations—facing early motions on joint-employer or integrated-enterprise theories. The ruling reflects how courts may prefer to defer employer-status determinations until discovery clarifies the structure, staffing, and operational relationships between related entities. While every case turns on its own facts, the decision suggests that motions based solely on corporate formalities or preliminary affidavits may not succeed when questions remain about whether entities share operations, personnel oversight, or governance in ways that could affect statutory thresholds.
For organizations that operate within larger networks or rely on affiliate relationships, this ruling highlights the importance of maintaining clear documentation of corporate separateness, employment practices, and divisions of responsibility. Courts may consider these materials essential when evaluating ADA and KCRA “employer” status, and early requests for summary judgment may face obstacles if the nonmoving party has not yet obtained discovery bearing on these issues.
As always, outcomes depend on jurisdiction, the statutory framework at issue, and the factual record developed during discovery. This decision underscores the procedural reality that employer-status arguments may require a complete evidentiary record before a court is willing to resolve them.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
