Lisa Beth Levine - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          authoritative and normally accepted without significant change.             
          Although Mr. Urman had the right to inspect and test all services           
          petitioner provided, he did not have the right to change her work           
               We conclude that the control the Government had over the               
          details of petitioner’s work is more consistent with a                      
          principal/independent contractor relationship than an                       
          employer/employee relationship.  This factor favors petitioner.             
               2.   Special Skill                                                     
               If a service requires a special skill to solve a problem,              
          the specialist called in to solve the problem is likely to be an            
          independent contractor.  By contrast, a worker hired to perform             
          the essential, everyday chores of the employer’s operation is               
          likely to be an employee.  McLaughlin v. Seafood, Inc., 861 F.2d            
          450 (5th Cir. 1988) (the workers were not specialists called in             
          to solve a problem, but laborers who performed the essential,               
          everyday chores of their employer’s operation).                             
               The State Department was authorized under 22 U.S.C. sec. 296           
          to contract for petitioner’s services as an expert industrial               
          hygienist.  The State Department hired petitioner to implement              
          its occupational health program by providing a responsive health            
          program; conduct industrial hygiene and environmental health                
          inspections worldwide; inspect and monitor facilities, processes,           
          or activities which might adversely affect an employee’s health             

Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011