Littlelambcompany

Nov 28, 2005 11:48 pm

Solution By OTA:

Departed OTA

Solution

go to problem

This is what I have found through my research...

Question 1

     In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when determining when a person is an independent contractor or an employee (usually at-will), the courts are to look at the hiring party's right to control the "manner and means" by which the product or project is accomplished. The courts are to look at: the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additoinal projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretoin over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.

     In looking at the fact pattern, this situation meets some of the elements for employee status: Mary obviously has a special skill the company needed; after Mary finished the special project, she started to work on other services for the company; Mary was asked to use company tooks and instrumentalities; Mary worked at the business's office; even though she originally had an employment contract with the business (independent contractor status), her employment morphed into employee status when she was asked to work on additional projects; the business told Mary to work within the company's regularly scheduled working hours; Mary's work was part of the regular business of the company; and the company was in business.

      Mary's employment status at the time she was released was employee, unless the original contract had a renewal provision (which on these facts, I woudl assume not), which would extend Mary's status as an independent contractor...