Securing Post Merger Partnership Rights: The Simpson v. Ernst & Young Case

In recent years our judicial system has been faced with a challenge of deciphering the blurred line in determining whether in specific cases a partner can qualify to be labeled as an employee, thus protected under the Tittle VII and other federal anti-discrimination statutes. A case that had clear influence and has resulted in an undeniable ripple effect is the Simpson v. Ernst & Young case, a case that was heard in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. This case clearly demonstrates the presents of multiple legal concepts and is viable in illustrating the challenges our courts face in clarifying a workable guidelines for the definition of an employee. The case will touch base with the multiple methods of defining an employee, the influence case law has on the issue, and high light the long standing risk of miss defining an individual as an employee or employer.
For one to be successful in understanding the legal concepts and the controversial challenges the judicial system encountered during this case one must have knowledge of the baseline undisputed facts involved in the profile of the case. This case involved the plaintive Peyton Simpson, born September 27th 1943, a managing partner at the Arthur Young accounting Firm in Cincinnati. In 1989 the Arthur Young accounting firm ad the Ernst & Whinney accounting firm decided to merge. Both firms held the public image of caring for their employees and primarily allowing their employees to easily climb the corporate latter of the company. The two firms guaranteed that partners of Arthur Young would receive equal if not better rights after the merger. They also emphasized the merger would not result in the discharge of partners. After the merger the new accounting firm of Ernst & Young consisted of two separate entities, the Ernst & Young firm and the Ernst & Young U.S firm. In the Ernst & Young firm members who were Certified Public Accountants (CPA) were required to sign an agreement under the

Bibliography: Creasy, Darren M. "Union of Formalism and Flexibility: Allowing Employers to Set Their Own Liability under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws, A." Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 44 (2002): 1453. Pokora, Leigh. "Partners as Employees Under Title VII: The Saga Continues-A Comment on the State of the Law." Ohio NUL Rev. 22 (1995): 249. Bannister, Joel. "In Search of a Title: When Should Partners Be Considered Employees for Purposes of Federal Employment Antidiscrimination Statutes." U. Kan. L. Rev. 53 (2004): 257. Greene, Stephanie M., and Christine Neylon O 'Brien. "PARTNERS AND SHAREHOLDERS ASCOVERED EMPLOYEES UNDER FEDERALANTIDISCRIMINATION ACTS." American Business Law Journal 40.4 (2003): 781-826. Johnson, Kristin Nicole. "Resolving the Title VII Partner-Employee Debate." Michigan Law Review (2003): 1067-1101. Kleinberger, Daniel S. "Magnificent Circularity and the Churkendoose: LLC Members and Federal Employment Law." Okla. City UL Rev. 22 (1997): 477. Greene, Stephanie, and Christine Neylon O 'Brien. "Who Counts: The United States Supreme Court Cites Control as the Key to Distinguishing Employers from Employees under Federal Employment Antidiscrimination Laws." Colum. Bus. L. Rev. (2003): 761. Murch, Douglas W. "Civil Rights-Employment Practices: Common Law Control Is the Best Test of Employee within Employment Discrimination-Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, PC v. Wells." NDL Rev. 80 (2004): 471. BROWN, SIDLEY AUSTIN, and WOOD QUALIFY AS EMPLOYERS OR. "CIRCULAR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EMPLOYEE: DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTNERS OF SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD QUALIFY AS EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES UNDER FEDERAL LAW." SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL 51: 1329.