Craft-Palmer v. State Farm Insurance ( 1998 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 98-60008
_______________________
FELECIA CRAFT-PALMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(1:97-CV-345-GR)
_________________________________________________________________
August 27, 1998
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal, Ms. Craft-Palmer objects to the district
court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on her Title VII
claims against State Farm, for whom she has served as an insurance
agent. The district court held that she is an independent
contractor, not an “employee” within the meaning of Title VII, and
thus that it lacked jurisdiction over her complaint. We find no
error and affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The district court properly applied this circuit’s
“hybrid economic realities/common law control test” to determine
whether State Farm is Craft-Palmer’s “employer”. Fields v.
Hallsville Independent School District, 906 F.2d 1017, 1019 (5th
Cir. 1990). Under that test, the “right to control” the details
and means by which the work is to be performed is the “most
important factor.” Id.Under Craft-Palmer’s contract with State Farm, she is
repeatedly designated as an independent contractor rather than an
employee. State Farm controls no details of the manner or means in
which she executes her business, runs her office, determines her
work schedule or clients, or hires or fires employees. The fact
that State Farm furnishes insurance forms, provides life insurance
and major medical insurance, can accept or reject a prospective
policy holder, and required her to be an exclusive agent are minor
matters and not determinitive. Other courts have uniformly held,
in circumstances less compelling than those before us, that
independent insurance agents are not as a matter of law “employees”
for Title VII purposes. See, e.g., Oestman v. National Farmers
Union Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1992); Knight v. United
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377, 378 (7th Cir. 1991).
Craft-Palmer has cited no cases finding that an insurance agent
like herself was an employee covered by Title VII.
Craft-Palmer also contends that the district court should
have granted her an opportunity for discovery in response to State
2
Farm’s summary judgment motion. She never sought discovery
pursuant to Rule 56(f); this contention is meritless.
Craft-Palmer does not appeal the district court’s
rejection of her state-law claims.
For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3