One of the legal areas in which there is great confusion is deciding whether a worker is an employee. Confusion on this issue is a serious problem, because employee status affects whether a person is covered by workplace statues. An example of this sort of confusion may be found in a recent case from Michigan. The trial judge held that the worker was not an employee because he was an “indentured servant”. Had the judge thought about it, the status of indentured servant would be illegal under the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most people are not confused to that extent. Progressive MI Ins. Co. v. Contract Towing, Inc., Case No.286570 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2009) http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2009/100109/43921.pdf
However, the trial judge’s opinion also suggested that he believed it is possible to contract out of employee status, and this is a common misunderstanding of the law. The trial judge also treated actions such as not withholding taxes and not complying with wage payment, workers compensation, and workplace safety laws as evidence of nonemployee status rather than as the legal violations they were.
The court of appeals, however, was not confused as to how to the law. It remanded the case to the trial court and instructed the judge to apply the common law economic realities test to the facts it had found. The elements of that test are: “‘(1) control of a worker’s duties, (2) payment of wages, (3) right to hire, fire and discipline, and (4) performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer’s business toward the accomplishment of a common goal.’” The most important of these elements is the right to control.
Sphere: Related Content
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
You must log in to post a comment.