Robert A. Mariotti, Sr. v. Mariotti Bldg Products Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A shareholder-director in a family-owned corporation sued for religious discrimination under Title VII after being fired. The court held he was an owner/employer, not an “employee” protected by the statute, because he possessed significant control and authority derived from his ownership stake.
Legal Significance: Extends the Supreme Court’s Clackamas test for determining “employee” status beyond the ADA and professional corporations, applying it to Title VII claims involving shareholders of closely held corporations and emphasizing the source of an individual’s authority as a key factor.
Robert A. Mariotti, Sr. v. Mariotti Bldg Products Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Robert Mariotti, Sr. was a co-founder, shareholder, vice-president, secretary, and director of Mariotti Building Products, Inc. (MBP), a closely held family corporation. He alleged that after a religious awakening, he was subjected to harassment by other family members who were also officers and directors. Following the death of the family patriarch, the other shareholders voted to terminate his employment, allegedly because of a eulogy he gave that referenced his faith. The termination letter stated that his benefits would cease but that his “share of any draws from the corporation” would continue. Despite his termination as an employee in January 2009, Mariotti continued to serve as a member of MBP’s board of directors until August 2009, when he was not re-elected. He filed suit alleging religious discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII. The district court granted MBP’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Mariotti was not an “employee” under the statute.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a shareholder-director of a closely held corporation, who participates in the management and governance of the business, qualify as an “employee” entitled to protection under Title VII?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff was not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a shareholder-director of a closely held corporation, who participates in the management and governance of the business, qualify as an “employee” entitled to protection under Title VII?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the application of the *Clackamas* control test to Title Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
Legal Rule
To determine if a shareholder-director is an "employee" under Title VII, courts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that the Supreme Court's test in *Clackamas*, although Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Clackamas test for determining “employee” status (originally ADA) **applies to