Skip to main content

Kakides v. King Davis Agency, Inc.

D. Mass.September 18, 2003No. 1:01-cv-12031Cited 3 times
Defendant WinKing Davis Agency, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Stearns
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil rights other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationHarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationBreach of Contract

Outcome

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on all discrimination claims, finding that plaintiff was an independent contractor from December 1, 1999 onwards and therefore not covered by Title VII or state discrimination statutes, and that claims predating that date were barred by the statute of limitations.

What This Ruling Means

# Kakides v. King Davis Agency, Inc. ## What Happened Kakides filed a lawsuit against King Davis Agency, Inc., claiming discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment. The employee also alleged retaliation and breach of contract. ## What the Court Decided The court ruled in favor of the agency. The judge determined that Kakides was classified as an independent contractor starting December 1, 1999. Because of this classification, the employee was not protected under federal discrimination laws (Title VII) or state anti-discrimination rules. Additionally, any complaints from before that date were too old to pursue in court under time limits for filing such cases. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case highlights how worker classification—whether someone is an employee or independent contractor—significantly affects legal protections. Employees generally have stronger protections against discrimination and harassment than independent contractors. Independent contractors may have fewer remedies when facing unfair treatment. Workers should understand their employment status and what protections apply to them.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Discrimination casesHarassment casesHostile Work Environment casesRetaliation cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB
U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938
Mixed Result
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951
Remanded
Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
Read Full OpinionMore King Davis Agency, Inc. RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More rulings from MassachusettsMore discrimination casesMore real estate employer cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.