Martinez v. Midwest Restoration LLC
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
2018 WL 2185020 (2018)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Olga Martinez (plaintiff) sued her former employer, Midwest Restoration LLC (Midwest) (defendant), for sex-based discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Midwest moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not qualify as an employer under Title VII and was therefore not subject to the act’s prohibitions. An entity was an employer only if it had 15 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more weeks of the current or previous year, here 2013 and 2014. Midwest’s payroll records showed that Midwest had no more than eight employees for any pay period in 2013 or 2014. However, Martinez argued that Midwest’s numbers were artificially low because Midwest regularly employed temporary employees, who were on the staffing companies’ payrolls. Martinez thought they should be considered Midwest employees for weeks they worked for Midwest. Martinez’s accountant reviewed the staffing agencies’ records and created a spreadsheet. It showed that Midwest employed 69 temporary employees at various points in 2014. However, it showed only five weeks in which at least 15 temporary employees worked at Midwest. Further, the spreadsheet did not show whether a temporary employee worked at Midwest all five workdays in a week. Nevertheless, the accountant concluded that Midwest had 15 or more employees for 21 weeks in 2014 after the accountant added between 11 and 17 employees to the temporary employees each week based in part on (1) one of Midwest’s interrogatory responses stating that it had five job-site employees and five to six administrative employees and (2) Martinez’s lawyer’s recollection that Midwest’s website showed five managers in 2014. The district court considered the parties’ arguments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Griesbach, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 914,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


