Serapion v. Martinez

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997 · Corporations

119 F.3d 982 (1st Cir. 1997)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsTitle VIIPartnershipsEmployment discriminationemployee statuspartner vs employeefederal lawownership

Facts

Serapión joined a San Juan law firm, later became a junior partner, and in 1990 became a proprietary partner with a 4% equity interest, pro rata liability for firm debts and losses, increased profit distribution units, and voting membership on the five-member Executive Committee. She also had voting rights on the Board of Partners, the firm's highest policy and decisionmaking body, and her compensation included a base salary plus a substantial share of firm profits. She alleged that three male partners never intended to let a woman reach full parity, dissolved the firm shortly before her three-year phase-in to parity ended, and formed a new firm without inviting her to join. She sued those partners and the new firm under Title VII and local law.

Issue

When a law-firm partner brings a Title VII claim, is her status as an "employee" determined by the partnership label or by a federal functional inquiry into her actual role? Applying that standard, was Serapión an employee protected by Title VII or a bona fide equity partner outside its protection?

Rule

For Title VII purposes, whether an individual described as a partner is an employee is a question of federal law. Courts must look beyond labels and conduct a case-specific, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry into whether the individual more closely resembles an employee or a proprietor, focusing principally on ownership, remuneration, and management; no single factor is dispositive.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A consulting partnership in San Juan classifies all partners as employees under a Puerto Rico statute for certain local labor protections. Elena Cruz, an equity partner with voting rights and profit-based compensation, brings a Title VII sex-discrimination claim and argues that the federal court must follow Puerto Rico's definition of employee.

How should the court determine whether Elena is an employee for Title VII purposes?

Explanation. Title VII employee status is a question of federal law, not state or territorial law. The court must use a federal, functional inquiry into the actual relationship with the firm rather than relying on Puerto Rico's classification or the parties' labels.