Simpson v. Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young (defendant) named Simpson (plaintiff) a partner, but he was paid a fixed salary plus a bonus untied to firm profits, could not vote on admitting or removing partners, had voting rights on major firm decisions that an advisory council could override, was denied access to review firm books even regarding his own termination, and had contributed capital only through a firm-arranged bank loan on which the firm itself paid the interest, without establishing any actual capital account; after being fired, Simpson sued for age discrimination, and Ernst & Young moved for summary judgment arguing he was an excluded partner rather than a covered employee.