Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s judgment that a corporate events company was not liable for the conduct of one of its employees.
Alexis Wells considered Timothy Vaughn her uncle. He and his family attended the church where Wells’s parents were pastors, and their families would vacation together.
When Wells was a senior in high school, she and Vaughn began discussing her interest in modeling. According to court records, Vaughn asked Wells for her measurements and for photographs of herself in athletic wear and partially nude. Vaughn made these requests under the guise of using his position at The Freeman Company, a corporate event agency, to help Wells launch a modeling career, the records say.
Vaughn was a technical solutions manager in Freeman’s audio-visual department which involved overseeing budgets, developing quotes for client events and operating as the direct client contact at events. He usually worked remotely from an office in his church.
In January 2020, Vaughn asked Wells to be a production assistant at one of Freeman’s client’s events in Florida. She was then on winter break from college. She agreed and Vaughn asked whether she had an LLC since it would impact how she would get paid.
She didn’t have one and as the event neared none of the internal staffing requests Vaughn made included Wells.
Vaughn told an employee of Freeman and an independent contractor that Wells was going to work the event.
He had Wells meet him at the church to discuss how she would be paid. He told her to keep track of her hours. She never filled out a W-2 or was onboarded with Freeman or Mertzcrew—a freelance management service Freeman used to retain independent contractors.
Her primary task was comparing two Excel documents listing audiovisual equipment needed at the event, but she also took notes on a few conference calls.
Wells flew to Florida on Jan. 19. That night, after checking into the hotel, she went to dinner with Vaughn and Lloyd Ellis, an independent contractor working the event. Vaughn told Wells that she needed to be able to keep up with their drinking. Ultimately, she and Vaughn consumed at least seven alcoholic drinks each, according to court records.
According to Vaughn, he followed Wells to her hotel room after dinner because she wanted him to look at the clothes she brought for the event. Once they were in the room, she asked him to take nude photos of her in the bathtub but once he noticed her falling asleep in the bathtub, he helped her put on clothes and get into bed.
Wells offered a different version of events. She claimed that Vaughn asked if she wanted to take updated photos for her modeling portfolio. She agreed and Vaughn directed her to lay on the bed wearing a thong so he could take photos with his iPhone. She alleges that he told her to shave so she went to the bathtub to do so and that he followed her and took the razor out of her hand and began shaving her pubic region. She alleges he then took photos of her and groped her. Eventually, he left, and she went to bed.
The next morning, Vaughn texted Wells planning to meet in the hotel lobby before going to the event together. By the time she arrived at the lobby, Vaughn already left.
Even after Wells joined Vaughn at the event site, she could not do much work because she did not have a computer. The only task Vaughn gave her that morning was to use her cell phone to plan a time to go to Top Golf.
After lunch, Wells was allowed to use a Freeman laptop to continue comparing spreadsheets of equipment needed for the event. The laptop was secured to the table, though, and it had to be unlocked by someone with Freeman credentials before Wells could use it. At the end of the workday, Wells, Vaughn, and Ellis returned to the hotel and ate dinner together. Wells excused herself from dinner, called her family, and left the hotel.
Wells’s attorney sent Freeman a pre-suit letter in April 2020. Until then, Wells had not told anyone at Freeman what happened in Florida or requested payment or reimbursement.
She settled her claims against Vaughn and then sought to hold his employer liable.
Wells brought Title VII, Indiana Wage Payment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress claims against Freeman, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Freeman’s summary judgment claims.
The first issue on appeal is that Wells sought relief under Title VII and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
“Because Wells is best classified as an independent contractor, both her claims fail as a matter of law,” Judge Joel Flaum wrote.
The court found that Freeman was not controlling Wells in any way but rather Vaughn had all the control.
“With the benefit of those considerations, it is clear that most of Freeman’s control is either attributable to Vaughn’s unprofessional conduct or the inherent nature of PA work (e.g., to be a PA Wells had to follow Vaughn’s instructions),” Flaum wrote.
The court cited Est. of Suskovich v. Anthem Health Plans of Va., Inc., 553 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2009), when stating that Wells did not identify any ways in which Freeman controlled her more than the PAs it hired through Mertzcrew.
Next, looking at Wells’s IIED and NIED claims the court found both failed as a matter of law. It also noted that absent guidance from the Indiana courts, it declined to expand the tort of IIED to fit Wells’s allegations.
“While Freeman’s internal investigation and representations to the EEOC may have been dishonest or even sanctionable, they were not tortious as a matter of law,” Flaum wrote.
The court further noted that there isn’t any evidence that Freeman entrusted Vaughn with scouting models or preparing portfolios of aspiring models to recommend to prospective clients.
“While Vaughn held himself out to Wells as someone who could advance her modeling career and put her in touch with brands for modeling opportunities, none of that ‘work’ was related to his position at Freeman. What matters are what responsibilities Freeman entrusted to Vaughn, not what responsibilities Vaughn held himself out as having,” Flaum wrote.
The court concluded that there was no basis for holding Freeman liable for Vaughn’s alleged conduct.
The case is Alexis Wells v. The Freeman Company, 23-1320.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.