engaged in the management of the AEA's Commissary. See De
Vivo's Aff. at 1.
Ms. De Vivo's oversight of the above activities cannot be
equated with management of the AEA's Commissary as the plaintiff
suggests. Thus, the Court finds that there is no evidence of
common management between the AEA and the USDOS.
4. Common Ownership or Financial Control
The plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the USDOS has no
financial ownership interest in the AEA. It is also
uncontroverted that the AEA is self sufficient and does not rely
financially on the USDOS. As noted above, the evidence reflects
that the AEA meets its budget needs from its business
The plaintiff, however, claims that the USDOS has "pervasive"
control over AEA's financial management. See Plaintiffs Opp.
14-15. The plaintiff points to Mr. Donald Hays' presence on the
AEA's Board as the Ambassador's non-voting representative to
show that the USDOS has a "pervasive control" over the AEA's
financial activities. Id. The plaintiffs claim emanates
directly from Mr. Hays' role on AEA's Board. A close examination
of Mr. Hays' role, however, suggests that he was not in any
position to dictate or exert financial control over AEA's
finances at all relevant times.
Mr. Hays served as the Minister-Counselor for Administrative
Affairs at the U.S. Embassy, Germany from August 1992 to July
1996. As the senior management officer for the U.S. Mission to
Germany, Mr. Hays was only responsible for the "operational and
financial management" of the U.S. Embassy and not the AEA. His
role with the AEA was "limited to advising the Board of the
interest of the Ambassador" and the U.S. Government. See Mr.
Hayes' Aff. ¶ 4, at 1,.
The plaintiff also contends that as part of his role on the
Board, Mr. Hays "ensures that AEA carrie[s] out its annual audit
and other reporting obligations" to the USDOS. See Plaintiffs
Opp. at 14. Thus, the plaintiff suggests, Mr. Hays role is not
limited to an advisory role. Id.
As a non-voting member of the Board, Mr. Hays does not dictate
policy matters or get involved in day-to-day management matters.
Mr. Hays advises the Board on matters affecting the U.S.
Government pursuant to the AEA's charter. See Mr. Hayes' Aff.
¶ 4, at 1. The plaintiff mistakenly equates the USDOS's effort
to help the AEA comply with its own bylaws and charter as
"pervasive control" of the AEA. Compliance with the charter,
although not absolutely required, allows the AEA to receive
assistance from the Central Commissary and Recreation Affairs.
It also allows the AEA the continued free use of space,
utilities, and properties from the USDOS. See 6 FAM 550 at 1.
In sum, the plaintiff cannot establish that the AEA and the
USDOS were a "single employer" under Title VII. Ultimately,
single employer status is characterized by the absence of an
"arms's length relationship found among the integrated
companies" or organizations. See Local No. 627, Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers v. N.L.R.B., 518 F.2d 1040, 1046 (D.C. Cir.
1975). In the instant case, the uncontroverted evidence shows
that at all relevant times the AEA operated "at an arms length"
and independently from the USDOS.
The focal point of the Court's inquiry in such a case as the
case before the Court is "the degree of control an entity has
over the adverse employment decision on which the Title VII suit
is based." See Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab., Inc.,
163 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 1998). By her own account, the USDOS
neither controlled or influenced the AEA's decision regarding
the plaintiffs employment. The plaintiff also concedes that she
was hired and dismissed by the AEA and not the
USDOS. See Exhibit M, at 2.*fn9 Thus, plaintiff has failed
to show that the USDOS had any control over AEA's adverse
employment decision against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has failed to put forth credible evidence to
show that the USDOS was involved in the alleged Title VII
violations. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the AEA
and the USDOS were a "single employer" in this matter.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendant's motion for
Interpreting all factors in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff, the Court rules that the plaintiff did not present
sufficient evidence to permit a jury to conclude that the
defendant, Madeleine K. Albright and USDOS had control over the
AEA. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment
with respect to plaintiffs claim that USDOS should be
accountable for AEA's alleged Title VII violation.