The Court of Appeals determined that coverage under Title
VII is limited to common law employees, which depends on a number of factors,
such as:
[1] the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means
by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this
inquiry are [2] the skill required; [3] the source of the instrumentalities and
tools; [4] the location of the work; [5] the duration of the relationship
between the parties; [6] whether the hiring party has the right to assign
additional projects to the hired party; [7] the extent of the hired party’s
discretion over when and how long to work; [8] the method of payment; [9] the
hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; [10] whether the work is
part of the regular business of the hiring party; [11] whether the hiring party
is in business; [12] the provision of employee benefits; [13] and the tax
treatment of the hired party.
While this test is most frequently utilized to determine
whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor, it can also be
applied to determine whether a volunteer is a covered employee. Unlike other circuits, the Sixth Circuit
considers compensation to be just one of the relevant factors, instead of categorically
more important. The Court rejected the
plaintiff’s argument that it should be of lesser importance. After noting that
the plaintiffs received no compensation or employment benefits, it also noted
that they largely controlled when they volunteered and how they performed. The plaintiffs were in no way economically
dependent on the defendants. The only
factors in their favor was that the plaintiffs had worked for the defendants
for several years and performed services in the defendants’ core business.
Nonetheless, it was debatable whether the nature of their services was like
that typically performed by employees or independent contractors.
The Court also found that the plaintiffs did not show that
they were retaliated against on the basis of their religious beliefs. The agency’s executive director had been
initially friendly with them, which meant that another factor must have arisen
when his behavior allegedly changed years later. The Court also concluded that they could not
show denial of equal protection because they failed to identify any other
volunteers who were treated differently in that they were the only two
volunteers who criticized the agency’s management.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and
alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and
does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead
to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
