- 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
product.
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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011