Employment Law - Case Study Example

Employment Law Case Jill must prove that she is an employee, rather than a mere independent contractor of Momma Mia. This is important because the determination will decide if the relationship between her and the company is governed by contract or the employment laws of the US. If Jill is classified as independent contractor, any dispute between her and Momma Mia will be determined by contract laws, but if she that she is an employee of Mommy Mia, she will be able to contest the termination in accordance to prevailing employment laws.

Momma Mia will then be subjected to wrongful termination charges. In addition, Momma Mia will be held liable for providing state and federal employment taxes, compensation insurance, withholding taxes, Social Security taxes and other employment benefits. Misclassification can subject an employer to penalties (DuBoff 1999 p. 80; Twomey p. 605). No statutory law clearly defines the term ‘employee,’ but common law describes an employee as one who provides or performs services for another for compensation where the employee determines the manner and the means by which the services or work is to be performed.

This common law agency-test was laid down in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v Darden, 503 US 318 (1992). Likewise, section 220 (2) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency defines the term servant similarly and enumerates ten elements to distinguish between servant and independent contractor: extent of control; distinctiveness of occupation; necessity of supervision over nature of work; skills required; supply of tools for the work; length of employment; method of payment; role of work in employer’s regular business; what the parties believed, and; if principal is in business or not.

Applying the law at bar, Jill qualifies as an employee. Her schedule and contacts, among others, need to be approved by her employer and equipment and other tools will be supplied as well by it. It is also evident that the company has established a framework as to how the work should be conducted from the manner with which they based their selection of the applicants. The company also dictates when and where Jill will go and travel to train other professionals. Moreover, courts have taken into consideration economic dependence of a party upon the other as an employee test itself as held in the case of Cuddeback v Florida Board of Education, 381 F. 3d 1230. Evidently, Jill will be totally dependent on Momma Mia to operate since she is a fresh graduate and has no capital of her own.

Jill can seek for back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, reinstatement or front pay. At the arbitration level, Jill can seek relief for reinstatement of her employment status, reclassification as employee rather than as independent contractor and demand that taxes and other benefits afforded an employee be granted her. At the federal level, Jill can seek damages, reinstatement or front pay for retaliatory action in participating in an investigation, under s. 704(a) of Title VII.; attorney’s fees, and; punitive damages.

She can also seek damages for sexual harassment because the employer has required her to work in its escort services, even though this was not part of the terms of the contract she entered into with them. In Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson et al, 477 US 57, the Court held that sexual harassment violates Title VII and are of two types: quid pro quo, and; hostile environment. In the present case, Jill is being forced to perform extra-contractual services that entail giving personal escort to clients in places outside of the workplace and one that is associated with sexual services, which violate her personal religious and moral convictions, one that could easily create a hostile environment for her.

Works Cited Cuddeback v Florida Board of Education, 381 F. 3d 1230. Duboff, Leonard. The Law (In Plain English) For Galleries, 2nd Edition. Allworth Communications, Inc., 1999. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co v Darden, 503 US 318 (1992). Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson et al, 477 US 57. Restatement (Second) of Agency. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Twomey, David. Labor & Employment Law: Text and Cases, 14th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2009.