In Arnold v Mutual of Omaha, Plaintiff Arnold, an insurance agent for Defendant Mutual of Omaha, after terminating her contract with Defendant, sued for unpaid employee entitlements under the Labor Code. Arnold claimed that the contract she had entered into with Mutual had improperly classified her as an independent contractor, and that under applicable law she was in fact an employee.
On Mutual’s summary judgment motion, the trial court, applying the common law test for employment, determined that Arnold was in fact an independent contractor. Arnold appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in concluding that the common law test for employment was applicable, rather than the broader statutory definition of employee under Labor Code section 2750. Alternatively, she argued that even if the common law test was appropriate, the trial court misapplied the test and should have determined that she was an employee as a matter of law.
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Civil Procedure Updates, Labor & Employment Law Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Barger & Wolen | Attorney Advertising