unit amount, and varies by community and by sales agent). According to KBLA’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing, she decided what plaintiff would be paid, and KB Home “had no role” in determining what plaintiff was paid. Perez Decl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff does not dispute that the third factor has not been met. The parties agree that the fourth factor — the maintenance of employment records — is satisfied in that KB Home maintains a database of information on employees of KB Home subsidiaries and KBLA uses KB Home’s shared payroll services. The Court is persuaded by KB Home’s argument, however, that these facts alone are as a matter of law insufficient to establish that KB Home was plaintiffs employer under the economic reality test. See Catani v. Chiodi 2001 WL 920025, *7 (D.Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the crux of the matter is whether the
holding that the fact that the defendant maintained employment records was insufficient to establish that she was a joint employer under the economic reality test recognizing the economic realities test for title vii holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two recognizing the economic realities test