Applying the Common Law Test for Employment, California Court of Appeal Finds That Insurance Agent is Independent Contractor

more+
less-

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.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Labor & Employment 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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »