- 20 - for advisory services was receiving the full amount of his 1999 bonus without having to negotiate the amount, and i2 would refrain from interfering with his ability to exercise his i2 stock options. However, the record indicates petitioner’s bonus was already established and set forth in his 1995 employment compensation package and indicates i2 did not have the legal right to limit petitioner’s ability to exercise his stock options, unless he started working for a competing company soon after departing i2. The record also fails to show he had any opportunity to earn a profit or to risk loss. This factor indicates an absence of an employee-employer relationship. (4) Right To Discharge The record is silent with respect to whether i2 retained the right to discharge petitioner. Petitioner expressed only that he would be terminated from his advisory role when a replacement was found. This factor is neutral. (5) Integral Part of Business Petitioner’s testimony indicates his post December 31, 1999, services were mostly advisory in nature on issues peripheral to i2’s principal business of creating supply chain management solutions. This factor indicates an absence of an employee- employer relationship.Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011