Question

In: Accounting

Brief case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,

Brief case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,

Solutions

Expert Solution

New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira

In this case ruling was given by united state supreme court on matter of classification of employee   hired as contractors in relationship to exceptions to arbitration set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Federal Arbitration Act allowed employers in US to refer to arbitration act for any employee related dispute, rather than taking every employee related matter to court for settlement. In current case there was dispute between company new prime & employee oliveira. Company was a trucking company. Here the dispute arose on employee classification i.e., company was claiming that employee hired as a contractor is not covered by Federal Arbitration Act. However employee oliveira was claiming that she is within definition of employee under Federal Arbitration Act. Oliveira was given training in the company after which oliveira was given option to be hired as an employee or hired as independent contractor. Company also told oliveira that it would be more beneficial if he opt fot independent contractor option. So, oliveira choose that option and worked for some time but after some time he realized that he was underpaid due to that option. So, he opted back to be choosed as an employee. His earnings increased after that. Company was doing same with other employees also. So oliveira decided to bring suit against the company under Federal Arbitration Act. But company claimed that when oliveira worked as independent contractor, she was not employee and so she was not covered by this act. The case went to supreme court from district court because district court refused to give any judgement. Supreme court gave unanimous decision in favour of employee. After reviewing dictionaries and other works published around 1925, it was clear that Congress' intent was not specifically tailored to specific term "employees" but instead to a broader classification of "workers", which would readily cover independent contractors. So, this was the whole case law about classification as employee under Federal Arbitration Act and judgement was in favour of employees.


Related Solutions

Write a Case Brief on the case Pasquarella v. 1525 WIlliam St.
Write a Case Brief on the case Pasquarella v. 1525 WIlliam St.
brief IRAC of case 40.1 Oliveira v. Sugarman
brief IRAC of case 40.1 Oliveira v. Sugarman
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts...
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts and issues of the case
Case brief ------Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. 1. Case 2. Issue 3. Rule 4. Analysis 5. Conclusion
Case brief ------Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. 1. Case 2. Issue 3. Rule 4. Analysis 5. Conclusion
Insigna v Labella is a benchmark case in Corporate Law. Please brief this case and provide...
Insigna v Labella is a benchmark case in Corporate Law. Please brief this case and provide the following: What are the facts of this case? What is the legal question being asked? What was the significant legal issue resolved?
Prepare and submit a case brief for the case of Meinhard v. Salmon 164. N.E. 545
Prepare and submit a case brief for the case of Meinhard v. Salmon 164. N.E. 545
case brief about the Greenbalt cooperative publishing association v. bresler
case brief about the Greenbalt cooperative publishing association v. bresler
I need a case brief for Mclaughlin v. County of Riverside (1991)
I need a case brief for Mclaughlin v. County of Riverside (1991)
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What...
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What issues is this case about? 3. What was the court's decision? 4. The reasoning behind the court's decision?
Brief the following case Cheek v. U.S. 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
Brief the following case Cheek v. U.S. 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT