August 14, 2025|Publications
August 14, 2025 | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | Nonprecedential Order
Executive Summary
In a nonprecedential order, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Dr. Veerasikku Bommiasamy on claims under Title VII and the ADEA. Dr. Bommiasamy alleged that NES Oklahoma, Inc. and Galesburg Hospital Corporation discriminated against him on the basis of age and national origin. He argued that the Hospital acted as his joint employer because it controlled scheduling and ultimately requested his removal, and that NES’s termination decision was tainted by a biased supervisor under a “cat’s paw” theory. The Seventh Circuit rejected both theories, holding that the Hospital was not his employer under the economic realities test and that NES’s independent decisionmaking defeated cat’s paw liability.
Note: The court addressed a number of additional issues, including administrative exhaustion and hostile work environment claims. This article focuses only on the joint employer and cat’s paw analysis, as those are the most pertinent for franchisors, franchisees, and employers.
Relevant Background
Dr. Bommiasamy contracted with NES in 2017 to provide emergency room services at Galesburg Hospital. His agreement with NES labeled him an independent contractor and required him to cover his own taxes, malpractice insurance, and licensing. NES issued his paychecks, retained the authority to terminate his contract, and managed scheduling.
According to Dr. Bommiasamy, his difficulties began under Dr. Singel, NES’s site medical director stationed at the Hospital. He alleged that Dr. Singel mocked his skin color, made derogatory comments about his national origin, and asked how many wives he had. He further alleged that Dr. Singel ridiculed the smell of his food, told him not to eat in the doctors’ lounge, and ordered him not to wash dishes there. He claimed that Dr. Singel repeatedly told him that he was too old, worked too many hours, and made too much money, often while standing close in an intimidating posture. He also alleged that when he complained about this harassment, Dr. Singel retaliated by threatening to cut him from the schedule and assigning him to night shifts he had not worked in years. He reported these incidents to several Hospital administrators and once to an NES vice president but alleged that no meaningful action followed.
The Hospital and NES offered a very different account. Hospital staff reported concerns about Dr. Bommiasamy’s clinical competence, including an incident where he allegedly left an endotracheal tube in a patient after ventilator support ended, which one NES executive described as “torture.” Administrators also raised concerns about his responses to two code situations, his decision to order a stress test for a non-ambulatory patient, his difficulties using the electronic records system, and scheduling challenges caused by his commute and block-shift requests. In November 2018, the Hospital’s CEO wrote to NES requesting that Dr. Bommiasamy be removed from the schedule. NES then terminated his contract the following month.
Decision
The Seventh Circuit first examined whether the Hospital qualified as a joint employer under the “economic realities” test. The court emphasized that control is the most important factor, particularly the power to hire and fire. NES, not the Hospital, hired and terminated Dr. Bommiasamy. The Hospital could request his removal, but it lacked contractual authority to terminate his employment. The court acknowledged that the Hospital influenced scheduling, dictated policies, and supervised quality of care, but it held that those actions did not transform the Hospital into an employer. Citing Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377, 378–79 (7th Cir. 1991), and Bronson v. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hosp., 69 F.4th 437, 449 (7th Cir. 2023), the panel reiterated that even meaningful input into scheduling or peer review does not establish an employment relationship. Because NES paid Dr. Bommiasamy, provided his contract, and carried the authority to end it, the Hospital could not be held liable as a joint employer.
The court next turned to cat’s paw liability. Dr. Bommiasamy argued that Dr. Singel’s alleged discriminatory animus proximately caused NES to terminate him. The court accepted that Dr. Singel’s alleged comments displayed bias, but it explained that cat’s paw liability requires evidence that the biased supervisor’s conduct proximately caused the adverse action. See Johnson v. Accenture LLP, 142 F.4th 536, 544 (7th Cir. 2025). NES’s leadership—including its Vice President of Operations and Chief Medical Officer—testified that they relied on the Hospital’s reports of performance and scheduling issues, not on Dr. Singel’s personal views. The court emphasized that an employer avoids cat’s paw liability when it conducts its own investigation and bases its decision on reasons unrelated to the subordinate’s bias. Sinha v. Bradley Univ., 995 F.3d 568, 574 (7th Cir. 2021). Because NES independently evaluated complaints and concluded that performance problems justified termination, the court found no basis for imputing Dr. Singel’s alleged animus to NES.
The panel concluded that the Hospital was not Dr. Bommiasamy’s employer under Title VII or the ADEA and that NES’s decision rested on nondiscriminatory grounds untainted by bias. It affirmed summary judgment for both defendants.
Looking Forward
The Seventh Circuit’s analysis reinforces two important points for franchisors and employers, but it also illustrates how fact-intensive these disputes can be. Courts place great weight on who holds the authority to hire and fire, but they may reach different outcomes under other joint employer standards applied in different jurisdictions. A court applying a broader test could view control over scheduling or influence on termination decisions differently.
For franchisors, the lesson is not that joint employer liability can be ruled out categorically, but that clear contractual lines and well-documented independence remain the best defenses. Employers should separate themselves from franchisee employment decisions, limit involvement in scheduling or discipline to advisory roles, and train decisionmakers to document independent reasons for adverse actions. These steps reduce exposure across jurisdictions, even where courts take a more expansive approach.
The case also underscores why franchisors must approach cat’s paw liability with care. In franchise systems, franchisors often operate complaint hotlines, conduct unit inspections, or flag concerns about franchise operations. When providing feedback, franchisors should avoid discussing specific employees whenever possible. If a situation makes it unavoidable to identify an employee’s conduct, franchisors should make clear that they are not recommending discipline or termination and that the franchisee should base any employment decision on its own independent investigation. While perhaps an overly conservative approach, this helps preserve the separation of roles while still allowing franchisors to protect brand standards and best avoid liability.
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 or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
