Assignment: Argumentation Assignment 2

Subject: Hospitality Law – HOSP8110

Student Name:
Student ID
Due Date
Hotel Coleman operated a Holiday Inn Express franchise, with Vaughn in charge of daily
operations and employee relations. Frey, an employee, accused Vaughn of sexual harassment and
retribution. Despite Vaughn's assertion of non-employment, the court determined that he was a
joint employer using an "economic realities" test. The court denied Vaughn's summary judgment
motion and ruled in favour of Frey on sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and
retaliation charges. A jury awarded compensatory damages, and the court approved back pay.
The choice emphasises the economic components of a shared employer relationship, such as
control, skill requirements, expenses, payment systems, and employment commitment (Justia us
Law, n.d.).
I support the appeals court judgement that reverses Vaughn Hospitality's removal as a joint
employer. This ruling emphasises the complicated nature of modern work arrangements,
emphasising the need to consider issues more than only payroll obligation.
Rationale View:
The court correctly highlighted the importance of control and supervision in establishing the
nature of the employer-employee relationship. It also emphasised the significant role that Vaughn
Hospitality plays in the plaintiff's daily job. Furthermore, because of Vaughn Hospitality's
significant supervision and management of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's allegation of retaliatory
firing after an EEOC complaint enhances the case against the latter. As control and supervision
are exercised, the decision emphasises the need to assign accountability, which protects workers'
rights in dynamic employment structures. It also acknowledges the increasing prevalence of
third-party management.
Opposite View:
The argument made by those who disagree with the appeals court ruling in Frey v. Hotel
Coleman is that Vaughn Hospitality and Hotel Coleman are two independent legal businesses and
should not be regarded as joint employers only because Vaughn Hospitality was involved in
some elements of employment. They emphasise that the argument for joint employer status is
weakened when important employment decisions are not under your control. In addition,
opponents highlight contractual agreements, highlighting that the plaintiff's income came from
Hotel Coleman and implying that financial connections are the main sign of employment,
downplaying the significance of regular supervision. Furthermore, others raise worries regarding
possible commercial repercussions, arguing that holding independent managers responsible as
joint employers might deter businesses from outsourcing managerial tasks and put corporate
interests ahead of the rights of individual employees.
In conclusion, the appeals court's ruling respects the changing nature of work relationships by
stressing the importance of control and supervision in determining joint-employer status, even as
it acknowledges possible counterarguments. In complicated, contemporary work arrangements,
this strategy guarantees equitable treatment and worker protection (Findlaw).
References
Findlaw. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1901378.html
Justia us Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-
2267/17-2267-2018-09-11.html