About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0039 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT LAW CHAPTER 1. EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP § 1.01. Conditions for Existence of Employment Relationship N.D.Ala.2019. Com. (a) cit. in ftn. Former employer sued former officer, alleging that defendant violated his employment agreement by soliciting business from plaintiff's customers and creating and operating a competing business within two years of his termination, and by using plaintiff's confidential information in his business. This court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was plaintiff's employee at the time he signed the employment agreement, because the record was unclear as to whether plaintiff's right to control defendant began after his first day, which took place after he entered into the agreement, or before, when plaintiff's executives asked him to modify his biography and he wrote a newsletter on behalf of plaintiff. The court cited Restatement of Employment Law § 1.01, Comment a, in noting that the terms principal, employer, agent, and employee were used to indicate which party in an alleged employer-employee relationship had the right to control the other. M5 Management Services, Inc. v. Yanac, 428 F.Supp.3d 1282, 1292. N.Y.2020. Cit. and quot. in conc. op., cit. in ftn. to conc. op.; subsecs. (a) and (b) and coms. (e) and (f) quot. in conc. op.; com. (d) cit. and quot. in conc. op. Delivery business that used a website and smartphone application to assign a courier to pickup and deliver customers' orders appealed a finding by the state board of unemployment insurance in favor of courier, arguing that it did not owe contributions to the unemployment fund on behalf of courier, because its couriers were independent contractors. The court of appeals reversed and remitted to the board for further proceedings. This court reversed and reinstated the decision of the board, holding that substantial evidence supported the board's determination that the delivery business exercised sufficient control over its couriers to render them employees. The concurrence argued for the application of the test set forth in Restatement of Employment Law § 1.01 for determining employee status, which considered factors such as whether a business effectively prevented its workers' entrepreneurial control over their services, reasoning that this test was better suited for electronically-mediated business models. Applying § 1.01, the concurrence reasoned that, in this case, the fact that delivery business prevented its couriers from creating client bases by not allowing customers to choose specific couriers and that couriers were hired to perform unsupervised, unskilled labor weighed towards finding that courier was an employee. Matter of Vega, 149 N.E.3d 401, 408, 411-416. COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most