Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Pa.: Local rotary club’s only employee failed to show club was an employer under Title VII, (Oct 21, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The court rejected the employee’s attempts to aggregate the employees of the local club and Rotary International.

A rotary club administrator, who was fired due to a Facebook post that violated the club’s code of conduct, cannot proceed to trial with her Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled, finding the club was not an employer under Title VII’s numerosity requirement because it had only one employee. Moreover, there was no genuine dispute that her employer and Rotary International were not a single employer where no parent-subsidiary relationship or shared operations existed. As such, the two entities’ employees could not be aggregated to meet the numerosity requirement, resulting in summary judgment in their favor (Jenkins v. Harrisburg Rotary Club, No. 1:24-CV-01724 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2025)).

The Rotary Club of Harrisburg is a member club of Rotary International. In 2023, the employee worked as a club administrator for RCH until it terminated her employment.

Termination due to Facebook post. RCH terminated her, its only employee, because she violated RI’s code of conduct via a Facebook post. RCH learned about the Facebook post from a former RI volunteer. She emailed the “Rotary Club of Harrisburg Leadership,” criticizing the post as “unacceptable.” The email’s recipients did not include any officer or director of RI.

A few days after receiving the email, RCH convened a board meeting. The RCH board voted by a majority to terminate the employee.

Complaint filed. The employee filed a complaint, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The defendants moved to dismiss. Following a three-month period of discovery surrounding who was the employee’s employer, including whether the defendants were acting as a single entity, the defendants filed this motion for summary judgment.

One employee. The court found there was no genuine dispute that RCH did not qualify as an employer under Title VII’s numerosity requirement. Under Title VII, an employer is an entity with 15 or more employees. The parties agreed that RCH had only one employee when it terminated the employee’s employment and currently has no employees. Thus, the employee’s Title VII claim failed as a matter of law.

No parent-subsidiary relationship. However, the employee argued that RCH and RI were a “single entity” under the circumstances and therefore qualified as an employer under Title VII because the total number of employees could be aggregated. The court disagreed, finding there was no genuine dispute that the defendants were not a single employer.

Applying the Third Circuit’s single-employer test set forth in Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, 347 F.3d 72 (3d. Cir. 2003), the court found there was no parent-subsidiary relationship. The employee admitted that RI was a separate and distinct legal entity. However, she argued that RI exercised control over RCH to terminate her employment by adopting RI’s code of conduct. Rejecting that argument, the court explained that an employment relationship cannot be created by a member club adopting an association’s code of conduct. That relationship depends on the level of control the employer exerted over the employee, such as which entity paid the salaries, hired and fired them, and had control over their daily activities. Here, RI exercised no control over RCH and its operations.

No shared operations. Turning to another prong of Nesbit under which a single employer could be found, the court said the employee failed to show the two entities had shared operations. The defendants shared no common officers or directors, did not coordinate any hiring or terminating of employees, and did not overlap in personnel decisions. In fact, RCH, its members, agents, or employees, have no authority to “act, negotiate, or contract on behalf of RI.”

Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether RI and RCH could be consolidated under the single-employer test. The defendants, therefore, could not be viewed as a single employer to meet Title VII’s numerosity requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-01724.

Judge: Camoni, S.

Attorneys: Kirk Edward Mentch (Mentch Law) for Maura A. Jenkins. Ana Rodica Ciobanescu (Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly) for Harrisburg Rotary Club aka Rotary Club of Harrisburg. Dawn Michele Sigyarto (Litchfield Cavo) for Rotary International.

Companies: Harrisburg Rotary Club; Rotary Club of Harrisburg; Rotary International

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge CoverageLiability PennsylvaniaNews