November 07, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
November 7, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Chief Judge Hala Jarbou dismissed age discrimination claims brought under the ADEA and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) against Berrien County by a nurse who worked at the County jail through a private medical-services contractor. The Court explained that the plaintiff alleged jail officers made age-based comments and interfered with her ability to complete medication rounds, ultimately leading to her resignation. Although the Court found the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the County could be considered a joint employer based on the control it allegedly exercised over her daily movements and work environment, the Court dismissed the case after concluding the complaint did not plausibly allege that the County was vicariously liable for the alleged harassment. The Court held that jail officers were not supervisors and that the County was not on notice of discriminatory conduct. The Court therefore granted the County’s motion to dismiss.
Relevant Background
According to the opinion, the plaintiff worked as a registered nurse at the Berrien County Jail from 2016 until 2023. She alleged she was formally employed by Wellpath, a private medical contractor, but was assigned exclusively to the jail. The complaint stated that jail officers directed where she worked during each shift and controlled her access to inmate areas by locking and unlocking doors. The plaintiff alleged that the officers could effectively bar her from work by revoking her clearance, which she claimed could lead to termination by her direct employer.
The plaintiff alleged that several jail officers made repeated comments about her age, including asking when she intended to retire, questioning whether she was too old to work at the jail, and referring to her as slow. She further alleged that the officers interfered with her ability to administer medications to inmates by delaying door access, interrupting her to address purported emergencies, and preventing her from completing her work after a set deadline. She claimed the combination of comments and conduct caused her to resign. The plaintiff reported the alleged interference to her Wellpath supervisor, who emailed jail officers instructing them not to interrupt nurses except for true emergencies. The plaintiff alleged that the conduct continued, but did not allege that she reported any age-related harassment to County leadership.
The County moved to dismiss, arguing it was not the plaintiff’s employer, that she failed to allege age-based harassment, and that even if harassment occurred, the County could not be held vicariously liable.
Decision
The Court first addressed whether the County could be considered the plaintiff’s employer under the joint employer doctrine. The Court observed that although Wellpath hired and supervised her, the plaintiff alleged enough facts to support an inference that the County exercised significant control over the terms and conditions of her work. The opinion emphasized allegations that jail officers directed her day-to-day activities, controlled her ability to move within the workplace, and could effectively bar her from work by revoking her clearance. The Court noted that while some aspects of control were attributable to jail security operations, other alleged conduct appeared tied to the performance of her duties rather than security. At the pleading stage, the Court concluded that the allegations plausibly supported joint employer status under both the ADEA and ELCRA.
The Court next addressed the alleged hostile work environment. The Court explained that the plaintiff alleged explicit age-related comments and alleged that the officers’ interference with her duties occurred in close connection with those comments. Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court found that she plausibly alleged age-based harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with her ability to perform her job. The Court also found that, based on the allegations, the alleged conditions could support an inference of constructive discharge.
The Court then turned to vicarious liability. The Court found that the jail officers were not supervisors for purposes of federal or state discrimination law because the plaintiff did not allege they had authority to take tangible employment actions such as hiring, firing, discipline, or reassignment. Because the alleged harassers were co-workers, the County could be liable only if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to act. The Court explained that the plaintiff alleged she reported only work interference—not age discrimination—to her Wellpath supervisor, and alleged no facts showing that County management knew of age-based conduct. The Court further stated that even if the County was on notice of work-related issues, that did not constitute notice of discriminatory motive. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the County was on notice of age-based harassment, the plaintiff failed to state a claim under either statute.
The Court therefore granted the County’s motion to dismiss.
Looking Forward
Although this case arises outside the franchise context, its analysis of joint employer allegations and vicarious liability provides meaningful compliance guidance for franchisors, franchisees acting in alignment with franchisor interests, and multi-unit employers. The Court’s approach underscores that allegations of day-to-day control may survive a pleading challenge even when an entity does not hire or pay the employee. However, this case also illustrates that vicarious liability for harassment requires clear notice of discriminatory conduct, and that generalized work-interference complaints may not suffice.
For franchisors, this decision highlights several important points. First, courts examine joint employer theories through a fact-specific lens, focusing on operational control tied to employment conditions rather than general oversight or business protocols. Second, the decision reinforces that even when control is alleged, liability for discriminatory conduct depends on knowledge and failure to act. Maintaining distinct employer roles, documenting clear personnel boundaries, and ensuring that franchisees have their own complaint-reporting and corrective mechanisms can help minimize the risk of being drawn into employment disputes involving franchisee personnel, especially where plaintiffs attempt to link routine operational directives to employer status.
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.
