Staffing agency might be co-employer in harassment case

A human resources company might be considered a co-employer, according to a Los Angeles County judge who denied the company's request to be dismissed from a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis found there were triable issues as to whether ADP TotalSource Inc., a Florida-based human resources and consulting firm, was the employer of a woman who said she was unjustly fired after complaining about her boss' unwanted advances.

Duffy-Lewis' decision could pave the way for a rare, if not precedent-setting, verdict at trial if she holds a staffing agency liable as a co-employer.

"There are triable issues of fact as to whether ADP took part in the termination of plaintiff and whether this termination was retaliatory and, therefore, against public policy," Duffy-Lewis wrote last week, denying the company's motion for summary judgment.

A woman represented by Marina del Rey attorney V. James DeSimone worked as a receptionist and executive assistant at the defunct printing company, Premier Printing and Mailing Inc. She filed a complaint in Los Angeles in 2018, alleging her supervisor sexually harassed and assaulted her before she was wrongfully terminated. She named both the printing company and ADP as defendants.

"The case has important ramifications for employment law because the trial judge is stating that we presented facts to prove ADP TotalSource was a co-employer of our client," DeSimone said in a statement Wednesday. "TotalSource is so intricately involved in critical aspects of the employment relationship, such as investigations into sexual misconduct, discipline, and termination, that it would be an injustice to allow their blatant violation of the law to go unaddressed."

DeSimone argued that as the co-employer, ADP, among other things, issued paychecks, handled employment applications and exit interviews, and provided workplace policies, including how to report harassment. ADP had the authority to investigate and to recommend discipline to its staff at Premier Printing, as well as the sole discretion to terminate them, according to the complaint.

Responding to a request for comment Wednesday, ADP Vice President Allyce Hackmann said it is important to note that Duffy-Lewis has not yet made a determination as to whether or not ADP is an employer.

"While ADP TotalSource respects the Court's opinion that there are triable issues, we strongly believe that the plaintiff does not have a valid claim against the company and that ADP TotalSource will prevail on those issues," Hackmann said.

Seeking dismissal from the suit, ADP, represented by Irvine attorney Tyler T. Rasmussen of Fisher & Phillips LLP, argued that the woman did not allege the staffing company engaged in any inappropriate or illegal actions toward her and acknowledged she was employed by Premier Printing.

"In fact, plaintiff testified that her only interaction with ADPTS was when it conducted an investigation into her complaint against her co-worker, Armando Lopez, during her employment with defendant Premier," ADP's motion for summary judgment reads. "Nevertheless, plaintiff attempts to argue that ADPTS, as a PEO [professional employer organization], Should be held liable for the alleged assaultive behavior of Mr. Lopez and for her termination by the defendant Premier."

Rasmussen did not respond to an interview request Wednesday. The case is set for trial March 7, 2022. Jane Doe v. Premier Printing and Mailing Inc., BC707690 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed May 24, 2018).