- 14 -
In the aggregate, then, the admitted facts and circumstances
detailed above are more than sufficient to establish an employer-
employee relationship between petitioner and DWP during 1996 and
1997. Furthermore, neither the additional requested admissions
denied by petitioners with cursory explanations nor certain other
points raised by petitioners in their opposition to respondent’s
motion require a different conclusion.
As to the substance of petitioner’s relationship with DWP,
petitioners made superficial attempts to address several of the
factors cited by the courts as pertinent to the employment
inquiry. For example, petitioners denied that DWP had the right
to discharge petitioner, explaining rather that DWP “did have the
right, with Petitioner Kevin Naughton’s consent, to terminate
their contractual relationship.” We, however, find it difficult
to imagine or accept such a relationship where the hiring party
would literally be required to obtain the permission of the
worker to fire him or her. We also note that petitioners stated
in their opposition to respondent’s motion that the relationship
“could be terminated at will by either party”. Accordingly,
petitioners’ descriptions are at minimum akin to a concession
that DWP could wield significant control over the duration of the
work arrangement. That, in turn, would be tantamount to a right
to discharge.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011