# Campbell

> District Court, N.D. Alabama · April 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11315387

## Case

- **Full name:** Heath Campbell v. Skyward LLC, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** April 24, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11315387

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

HEATH CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:24-cv-854-HDM

SKYWARD LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Heath Campbell alleges that Defendants Skyward LLC (“Skyward”)
and Aqua Systems Alabama LLC (“Aqua Systems”) discriminated against him in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (the
“ADA”). This case is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, in which the sole issue is whether Mr. Campbell’s employer had the
requisite number of employees to render it subject to the ADA. (Doc. 37).
It is undisputed that Mr. Campell was employed by Skyward at all times
relevant to his complaint. At oral argument on January 20, 2026, Skyward
“stipulat[ed] that there is an issue of fact as to the [employee] head count,” because
Mr. Campbell “identified an additional week in which the [Skyward] payroll showed
that there were 15 employees.” Transcript of Oral Argument, 3:25–4:4. Accordingly,
because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Skyward, Mr.
Campbell’s employer, had the requisite number of employees to be covered by the
ADA, the court DENIES the motion for summary judgment as to Defendant

Skyward.
Defendant Aqua Systems maintains its motion for summary judgment. The
only remaining question for the court’s consideration is whether Aqua Systems and

Skyward are, collectively, an “integrated enterprise,” such that the number of
employees between the two companies should be considered in determining whether
Mr. Campbell’s employer, Skyward, had the requisite number of employees to be
covered by the ADA.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Mr. Campbell, a former employee of Skyward, brings a discrimination claim

under the ADA. Specifically, he contends that Skyward terminated him due to his
ongoing health conditions in violation of the ADA. (See Doc. 20). Skyward and
Aqua Systems move for summary judgment on the grounds that Skyward did not
have enough employees to be covered as an employer under the ADA, and Skyward

and Aqua Systems are not a single or integrated employer.1

1 Skyward and Aqua Systems only move for summary judgment on these grounds. For this reason,
the court does not analyze the underlying merits of the claim apart from whether the defendants
qualify as an “employer” under the ADA.
Facts set forth in the parties’ statement of material undisputed facts are
deemed admitted for summary judgment purposes unless controverted by the

response or reply of the opposing party. Any justifiable inferences are drawn in favor
of the plaintiff as the nonmovant. These are the undisputed material facts and any
disputes of material facts:

Factual Background as to Aqua Systems
In 1999, non-parties Tonja and Chris Sims started Birmingham Water
Solutions, a company that sold and serviced water filtration systems in Alabama.
(Doc. 39-1 at 13). In 2017, to facilitate a switch to the “Aqua Systems” brand of

filtration systems, Tonja Sims started Jorco, LLC d/b/a Aqua Systems, with herself
as the sole owner. Id. at 15–16. Aqua Systems is in the business of selling and
servicing water filtration systems, id. at 15, and it does not perform any general

plumbing services, id. at 19. Aqua Systems’s only office is in Pelham, Alabama. Id.
at 21.
Factual Background as to Skyward
In 2022, Chris Sims purchased a majority ownership interest in Chandler-

Wise Services, LLC, a heating, cooling, and plumbing company in Decatur,
Alabama, that later changed its name to Skyward. Id. at 17–18. Mr. Sims acquired a
seventy percent ownership share in Skyward, while the company founders, Gary

Wise and Hollis Chandler, each retained a fifteen percent ownership share. Id. at 17.
Skyward’s only office is in Decatur, Alabama. Id. at 19. Plaintiff Heath Campbell
worked as a plumber for Skyward from August 29, 2022, to March 24, 2023. Id. at

29, 48.
Relationship between Aqua Systems and Skyward
Tonja and Chris Sims are both paid by Aqua Systems, but not Skyward. (Doc.

39-1 at 17; Doc. 42-3 at 8). Mr. Sims is the president of both companies. (Doc. 39-1
at 23). Mr. Sims has the authority to sign contracts for both Skyward and Aqua
Systems, and he oversees the financial operations of both companies. Id. He also has
final say over what money is spent by both companies, a responsibility that he shares

with Ms. Sims as to Aqua Systems. Id. With the assistance of managers, Mr. Sims
oversees hiring decisions at both companies and sets wages for the employees at
both companies. Id. at 23, 27.

Aqua Systems and Skyward do not have any common bank accounts, and they
maintain separate accounts and lines of credit with different banks. Id. at 27. Mr.
Sims is on the bank accounts for both companies. Id. at 23. Each company maintains
its own general liability and worker’s compensation insurance through different

insurance companies. Id. at 27–28. Aqua Systems and Skyward do not share any
equipment, computers, or vehicles. Id. at 26. The accounting records of the two
companies are maintained separately. (Doc. 39-3, ¶ 4). Each business has its own tax

identification number and files its own tax returns. Id. ¶ 5. Aqua Systems and
Skyward both use ADP, a payroll firm, to administer their payrolls, but the
companies have their own, separate accounts with ADP. (Doc. 39-4 at 35).

Aqua Systems provides loans to Skyward for various expenses, (doc. 39-4 at
16), and Mr. Sims estimates that Skyward currently owes Aqua Systems
$300,000.00, (doc. 39-1 at 31). Furthermore, Aqua Systems issues credit cards to

Skyward employees to allow them to purchase gas for their Skyward-owned
vehicles. Id. at 32. The amount Skyward “owes” to Aqua System for this gas is
tracked, and Skyward repays it as it is able. Id.
Employees of Aqua Systems do not work out of the Skyward office in

Decatur, id. at 19, but at least one Skyward employee works out of Aqua Systems’s
office in Pelham full time. Id. at 21. Skyward does not pay any rent or fee to allow
its employees to work out of Aqua Systems’s office. Id. Skyward has sold and

installed Aqua Systems products. (Doc. 42-2 at 6).
Amy Parrish, the former accounting manager and current human resources
manager for Aqua Systems, also acted as a personal assistant to Chris Sims for both
business and personal matters. (Doc. 39-1 at 11; Doc. 39-5 at 2). At times, Ms.

Parrish would also input payroll information and handle unemployment paperwork
for Skyward employees. (Doc. 39-1 at 39). In fact, Ms. Parrish is the one who
completed Mr. Campbell’s employee eligibility form and signed off on his I-9 form

when he began working for Skyward. (Doc. 39-4 at 28). During Mr. Campbell’s
employment with Skyward, Ms. Parrish would contact him regarding employment
matters. (Doc. 39-1 at 11). Mr. Campbell would speak directly to Ms. Parrish

regarding work issues and provide status updates to her and Mr. Sims regarding his
health condition. Id. at 28; (Doc. 42-4 at 12).
Mr. Campbell worked as a plumber for Skyward. (Doc. 39-1 at 29). In

addition to his plumbing work, Mr. Campbell was taught how to sell, install, and test
Aqua Systems water purification systems. (Doc. 42-4 at 7; Doc. 39-1 at 20).
On March 24, 2023, Skyward terminated Mr. Campbell. (Doc. 39-1 at 48).
No employee of Aqua Systems was involved in the decision to terminate Mr.

Campbell’s employment with Skyward, (doc. 39-1 at 11), which was made by two
Skyward managers and approved by Chris Sims, id. at 38–39. However, Skyward
personnel sent statements regarding the termination to Ms. Parrish in Birmingham

to place in Mr. Campbell’s file. (Doc. 39-4 at 24).
After Mr. Campbell filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against Skyward, Ms. Parrish, an
Aqua Systems employee, drafted the response to the charge with the assistance of

Asa Shelton, (doc. 39-1 at 7), a Skyward employee who sometimes performs work
for Aqua Systems, id. at 26. Ms. Parrish and Jennifer Minkler (another Aqua
Systems employee) both participated in the EEOC mediation of Mr. Campbell’s

claim on behalf of Skyward. Id. at 9; (Doc. 39-4 at 25).
It is undisputed that, if the number of employees for Skyward and Aqua
Systems are aggregated, they had more than fifteen employees for more than twenty

calendar weeks for both 2022 and 2023. (Doc. 39-1 at 43).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “In determining whether the movant has met this burden,
courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.”
Anthony v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796, 804 (11th Cir. 2023). A genuine dispute of material

fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The party asking for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of

informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the
pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving
party has met its burden, Rule 56 requires the non-moving party, if it will bear the

burden of proof at trial, to go beyond the pleadings and—by pointing to affidavits,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file—designate specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
ANALYSIS
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified

individuals with a disability and requires employers to provide reasonable
accommodations to qualified individuals with a disability if the employer can do so
without undue hardship. Crucially, employers are only subject to the ADA if they

have “15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar
weeks in the current or preceding calendar year[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(a).
Per Skyward’s concession at oral argument, a genuine dispute of fact exists as
to whether Skyward itself, during the time relevant to Mr. Campbell’s complaint,

employed a sufficient number of individuals to fall within the statutory definition of
“employer.” It is undisputed that, if Skyward and Aqua Systems are counted as one
entity, they collectively employ enough people to meet that definition. So, the

question before the court is whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine
issue concerning whether Skyward and Aqua Systems should be viewed and treated
as a single “employer” under the ADA. Mr. Campbell argues that the two entities
should be aggregated and treated as a single employer under the ADA because

Skyward and Aqua Systems are highly integrated with respect to ownership and
operations. By contrast, Aqua Systems contends that they are separate and distinct
legal entities and should be treated as such.
Where two ostensibly separate entities are “highly integrated with respect to
ownership and operations,” a court may count them together as an integrated, single

employer in determining whether they are subject to the ADA. McKenzie v.
Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting Fike
v. Gold Kist, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 722, 726 (N.D. Ala. 1981), aff’d, 664 F.2d 295 (11th

Cir. 1981)).2 This is the Eleventh Circuit’s “single employer” or “integrated
enterprise” test. Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 166 F.3d 1332, 1341 (11th Cir.
1999). To determine whether two separate entities should be considered a “single
employer” under the ADA, courts in the Eleventh Circuit utilize a standard

developed by the National Labor Relations Board and “look to the following four
criteria: (1) interrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3)
common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control.” Walker v.

Boys & Girls Club of Am., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1330 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (citing
McKenzie, 834 F.2d at 933). When dealing with private entities, not every factor
needs to be present, and no one factor is controlling. Lyes, 166 F.3d at 1341 n.5.

2 Several of the cases the court relies on in its analysis and application of the “single employer”
test here (and that the parties cite in their respective briefs) are Title VII cases. See e.g., McKenzie
v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir. 1987); Lyes v. City of Riviera
Beach, Fla., 166 F.3d 1332, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). The court notes that the relevant portion of the
definition of “employer” in the ADA is identical to the definition of “employer” in Title VII, and
this court has previously used the same single employer test when evaluating ADA claims. See
e.g., Schultz v. Metro Truck Rental Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01598-CLM, 2020 WL 7211162 (N.D. Ala.
Dec. 7, 2020) (analyzing Plaintiff’s “single employer” argument with respect to his ADA claim).
1. Interrelatedness of Operations Between Aqua Systems and Skyward
In considering whether two entities are sufficiently interrelated as to qualify

as a single employer under the ADA, the Eleventh Circuit considers the following
factors identified by the NLRB: (1) combined accounting records; (2) combined
bank accounts; (3) combined lines of credit; (4) combined payroll preparation; (5)

combined switchboards; (6) combined telephone numbers; and (7) combined offices.
Walker, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 1331.
Skyward and Aqua Systems maintain separate bank accounts and separate
accounting records. They also have separate telephone numbers and office locations.

However, at least one Skyward employee works out of Aqua Systems’ Pelham,
Alabama, office, and Skyward does not pay any rent or fee to allow that employee
to do so. While their physical offices may not be combined, Mr. Campbell knew

several employees who were employed by only Aqua Systems or Skyward but who
were doing work for both companies. Aqua Systems and Skyward have separate
accounts with the same firm to administer their payrolls, but Ms. Parrish, an
accounting manager for Aqua Systems, would at times input the payroll information

for Skyward employees.
Lastly, while Aqua Systems and Skyward have separate lines of credit at
different banks, Aqua Systems provides loans to Skyward for various expenses. Mr.

Sims estimates that Skyward currently owes Aqua Systems $300,000.00. Aqua
Systems issues credit cards to Skyward employees to allow them to cover expenses,
and Skyward repays the amount owed as it is able.

In addition to these indications, the Eleventh Circuit has considered the close
affiliation of two defendant companies as evidenced by their advertisement of
services. McKenzie, 834 F.2d at 934. In McKenzie, the court considered how two

companies marketed their services to the public in tandem, encouraging customers
who were purchasing insurance from one company to utilize burial arrangements
from the other. Id. Here, Chris Sims taught the plumbers at Skyward, including Mr.
Campbell, how to sell, install, and test Aqua Systems’s water purification systems.

In fact, Mr. Campbell was told by Skyward that they were only to install Aqua
Systems water purification systems.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, there is at least some

evidence of interrelatedness between Skyward and Aqua Systems.
2. Centralized Control of Labor Relations
The second factor of the integrated enterprise test is whether there is
centralized control of labor relations. Walker, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 1330. “The ‘control’

required to meet the test of centralized control of labor relations is ‘actual and active
control of day-to-day labor practices.’” Id. at 1333 (quoting Fike, 514 F. Supp. at
727).
Here, Mr. Sims, acting as president of both Skyward and Aqua Systems,
appears to control the labor relations of both companies. Specifically, Mr. Sims

makes the final decisions on hiring and wages at both companies and he freely uses
employees paid by Aqua Systems to assist him with Skyward’s labor relations. One
of the best illustrations of this is Ms. Parrish, the human resources manager at Aqua

Systems who also sets new Skyward employees up and removes former employees
from Skyward’s payroll.
Ms. Parrish was also involved in facilitating Mr. Campbell’s return to work at
Skyward following a health episode. In that instance, Mr. Campbell, a Skyward

employee, provided a doctor’s note directly to Ms. Parrish at Aqua System’s office.
Then, after speaking with Mr. Sims, Ms. Parrish called Mr. Campbell and explained
to him that “he was not supposed to be there, that he could not clock in, and they

needed a note from his heart doctor releasing him to return to work before he could
work.” (Doc. 39-1 at 33; Doc. 42-4 at 12). Then, after Mr. Campbell requested that
his cardiologist send a note to both Skyward and Aqua Systems’s offices, Ms. Parish
at Aqua Systems is the one who received it. She let Mr. Campbell know that his

paperwork was acceptable and that he could return to work at Skyward the next day.
Moreover, after Mr. Campbell’s termination, Ms. Parrish with Aqua Systems
is one of the individuals who responded to the EEOC charge filed by Mr. Campbell

against Skyward. (See Doc. 1-2) (providing a carbon copy of the EEOC’s Dismissal
and Notice of Rights letter to Ms. Parrish). She also attended the EEOC mediation,
along with another Aqua Systems employee. Thus, the undisputed facts suggest

centralized control of labor relations between the two companies.
3. Common Management
The third factor of the integrated enterprise test is whether the two companies

are subject to common management. Walker, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 1330. While there is
not much evidence before the court regarding directors and officers of the two
entities generally, Chris Sims is the president of both companies. He also controls
personnel management of both companies, has the authority to sign contracts for

both Skyward and Aqua Systems, and oversees the financial operations of both
companies. He also has final say over what money is spent by both companies, a
responsibility he shares with his wife as to Aqua Systems. With the assistance of

managers, Mr. Sims oversees hiring decisions at both companies and sets wages for
the employees at both companies. Therefore, there is at least some evidence in the
record of common management.
4. Common Ownership or Financial Control

The final factor the court considers in assessing whether two businesses
should be regarded as an integrated enterprise is whether they are subject to common
ownership or financial control. Walker, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 1330. The two companies

do not share common ownership. Aqua Systems is owned by Tonja Sims, while
Skyward is owned by Chris Sims. However, there is some evidence of financial
control. Mr. Sims oversees the financial operations of both companies, including the

wages set. As previously discussed, with Mr. Sims’s approval, loans are made
between the two companies and Skyward repays Aqua Systems as it is able.
* * *

When this court has not found an integrated enterprise or single employment
relationship between two defendant corporations, it reached that conclusion when
there was “a total lack of evidence of an employment nexus between the defendant
corporations.” Fike, 514 F. Supp. at 728. That is not the case here.

The court does not reach a finding that Skyward and Aqua Systems are an
integrated enterprise or single employer. But because there is some evidence of each
of the four factors of the integrated enterprise or single employer test, the court finds

that “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party” on the issue of whether the two companies are an integrated
enterprise. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Therefore, Aqua Systems motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained herein, Skyward and Aqua Systems’ motion for
summary judgment, (doc. 37), is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this April 24, 2026.

HAROLD D. A Hil
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11315387. Public record. Not legal advice.