This paper examines the legal distinction between employee and independent contractor status through the case of Mary, a worker initially hired as an independent contractor who was gradually reclassified through increased employer control over her work methods, tools, and schedule. Drawing on IRS Common-Law Rules and the Fair Labor Standards Act enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor, the paper argues that Mary's employer crossed the legal threshold into an employment relationship without granting her corresponding benefits. The paper further evaluates the legality of Mary's termination under the employment-at-will doctrine and explores potential claims based on breach of implied contract and discriminatory or nepotistic dismissal.
Mary first needs to establish clearly whether she is an employee or an independent contractor. While she may have been hired as an independent contractor, she was later subtly reclassified as an employee. An independent contractor works on a freelance or project basis, meaning her place in the firm is not permanent. Mary was initially one such contractor, since her services were required for one specific project. Her contract with the firm was extended when a second project arose for which Mary's skills were found suitable.
However, when the second project began, Mary was no longer functioning as an independent contractor. She was frequently instructed to work with specific materials and equipment and was required to follow the company's work schedule. This is an example of the exploitation of an independent contractor agreement, since only an employee can lawfully be directed regarding which tools to use or when, where, and how to perform work.
Independent contractors are free to choose the place and manner in which they work. These principles are clearly set out in the IRS Common-Law Rules, developed precisely to resolve the confusion between employees and independent contractors and to help both parties avoid exploitation. If the firm is found to be violating these rules, Mary can lodge a complaint and involve the IRS.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) also establishes specific standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Mary is clearly being reclassified as an employee without receiving the benefits that accompany that status. The central distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is the degree of control the employer exercises over the person. The IRS Common-Law Rules specifically state: "A general rule is that anyone who performs services for you is your employee if you can control what will be done and how it will be done." [1]
"Supervisor control signals shift to employment relationship"
"Employment-at-will doctrine and wrongful termination claims"
In this case, everything depends on Mary's ability to challenge her position as an independent contractor. Once it is proved that she was being used as an employee without receiving all the related benefits, she can not only challenge her termination but also charge the firm with violations of the IRS Common-Law Rules and the Fair Labor Standards Act enforced by the Department of Labor.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.