- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011