Question

This is for business law. Please answer in this format:

I. Facts – What happened?

II. Issue – What is the question of law?

III. Holding – What is your decision?

IV. Reasoning – What principles of law did you base your decision on?

Employment Relationships. William Moore owned and operated Moore Enterprises, a wholesale tire business, in Idaho. While in high school, Williams son, Jonathan, worked as a Moore employee. Later, Jonathan started his own business, called Morecedes Tire. Morecedes regrooved tires and sold them to businesses, including Moore. Moore made payments for the tires not to Jonathan, but to Morecedes Tire, without tax withholding. A decade after Jonathan started Morecedes, William offered him work with Moore for $12 per hour.

Jonathan accepted but retained Morecedes Tire. On the first day, William told Jonathan to load some tires on a trailer. While Jonathan was unhooking the trailer, a jack handle struck him. He suffered several broken bones in his face and a detached retina. He was never paid for the work. He filed a workers' compensation claim. Under Idaho’s laws, an individual must be an employee-not an independent contractor-to obtain workers' compensation. What criteria do the courts use to determine employee status? How do they apply to Jonathan?

Answer 1

As per, Idaho code section 72-102 (17), an 'independent contractor' is a person who delivers service for a specified compensation in order to complete a specific purpose. Such person has right to control the outcome of his/her own work.

Whereas, section 72-102 (12) under Idaho defines an 'employee' as a person who has entered into an employment contract with the employer and perform his/her work under the employer.

In the above case Jonathan filed a compensation claim against William when he refused to compensate subsequent to Jonathan’s injury while working in his company.

Here, the issue of discussion primarily was whether Jonathan was an employee as per the Idaho law or was an independent contractor. If in case he is a employee he should be compensated for the injury. While if he is a independent contractor he would not be compensated. There are some important provisions of Idaho law which can be considered for decision making under this case.

Firstly, as per the above case it can be found that the William had no control over the time, conduct and mechanism of the job assigned to Jonathan and it was Jonathan himself who controlled his work. Thus, it can be said that Jonathan cannot be compensated as he was not under the employment contract with William.

Secondly, there was no proper evidence of payment to Jonathan in the Books of Moore enterprises and the plaintiff was paid as a separate business payment without any tax withholding for the job performed by him.

Thirdly, it has to be identified that who owned the major item of equipment that was a regrooving machine. As per the case both Jonathan and William owned equipments as joint ventures. Thus, it cannot be clarified that who was the actual owner of equipment used at the time of accident.

Fourthly, in order to reach the conclusion of the case findings the last factor to be considered by the court is to find out whether the right to terminate the employment relationship at will existed or not. Since, there was no written evidence of the employment contract between Jonathan and William it cannot be proved that Jonathan has the right to terminate the employment contract at his will.

Hence, as per the findings of the case it can be concluded that Jonathan was an independent contractor, not an employee of William’s business at the time of the accident since there is no evidence that proves that he was the employee of William. As a result, he cannot be compensated as per workers compensation for his injuries in this case.