Wells filed a lawsuit against her employer Clackamas Gastorenterology Associates, P.C. alleging that the medical clinic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act) when it terminated her employment. The medical clinic asserted that it was not subject to the provisions of the ADA because the ADA applies only to businesses with 15 or more employees. That assertion's accuracy depended on whether the four physician-shareholders who own the professional corporation and constitute its board of directors were counted as employees. The District Court concluded that the physicians were more analogous to partners in a partnership than to shareholders in a corporation and therefore were not employees under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding no reason to permit a professional corporation to reap the tax and civil liability advantages of its corporate status and then argue that it is like a partnership so as to avoid employment discrimination liability. Which argument do you think is correct? Why? How do you think the Supreme Court resolved this?
See Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 123 S.Ct. 1673 (2003).