The Court held that Eyerman was an independent contractor, and since the employment discrimination statute did not apply to independent contractors, she could not maintain her employment discrimination claim. Eyerman was dismissed as a national sales director after several alcohol related incidents on company business. In her suit, she alleged that she was technically an employee of Mary Kay and not an independent contractor, or in the alternative, that the Ohio employment discrimination statute also applied to independent contractors. The Court found that despite certain characteristics of an employment relationship, Eyerman was clearly an independent contractor. Her contract with Mary Kay clearly laid out the terms of her relationship with the company, she considered herself an independent contractor for tax and promotional purposes, and the company did not exercise the level of control over her job to give rise to an employment relationship. The Court also ruled that the Ohio employment discrimination statute did not apply to independent contractors, and it was the legislatures prerogative to change the law.

The full case can also be found online at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Everman_v_MaryKay.php