Common Law Issues in Hiring

Brad began working at Lay-Z-Guy in 1981 as a customer service manager. In 1995 his employer started requiring him and other salespeople to sign a series of one-year agreements that stated they could be terminated on 60 days’ notice. Three years later it required Brad to incorporate, and from that point forward, the agreements were between Lay-Z-Guy and Brad’s corporation. The agreements defined Brad, and later his corporation, as an “independent marketing consultant” and expressly stated that the relationship was not one of employment, but rather of an independent contractor–principal. Brad paid for his own office space and remitted his own income taxes and workers’ compensation premiums. At the same time, Lay-Z-Guy set prices, territory, and promotional methods and Brad was limited to servicing Lay-Z-Guy exclusively. In 2003, Lay-Z-Guy terminated the agreement with 60 days’ notice. Brad sued for wrongful dismissal damages, alleging that he was an employee.
1. What arguments could Brad make to support his position that he was an employee?
First argument is Brad worked for long period from 1981 – 2003 at Lay-Z-Guy. If he was an independent contractor, he would have been hired for a specific project or period (Filsinger, 2013, p.80). However, his contract was a series of one – year agreements which is more likely indefinite basis instead of indicating certain contract period or project title. Another argument is Lay-Z-Guy set prices, territory, and promotional methods which are very important factors to perform and maintain Brad’s work. Brad worked under the company’s operation control rather than having autonomy which is more likely employee – employer relationship.
2. What arguments could Lay-Z-Guy make to support its position that Brad was an independent contractor?
First argument is Brad and the company had a written contract which was clearly stated the relationship as an “independent marketing consultant”. Second argument is “Brad paid for his own office