Employee Versus Independent Contractor

Cecil Young appeals from the judgment of the trial court that he was not the employee of the city of Bridgeport . This case is Cecil Young v. City of Bridgeport, 135 Conn. App. 699 (2012).

 

Young filed a two count complaint against the city of Bridgeport alleging claims of retaliatory discharge in violation of state law. At all times relevant to this action, Young was an elected city sheriff for the city. Individuals elected to the office of city sheriff do not have any affirmative duties or responsibilities, no scheduled work hours, and no designated office space in a city building. Young spent his time as sheriff serving process papers and he was paid a flat rate for each summons or process served.

 

The city terminated all employment duties given to Young after he reported suspected violations of state laws and regulations and municipal ordinances. Young filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. The city claimed that Young could not prevail on his claims because his evidence did not establish that he was the city's employee as required by statutes. The trial court ruled that Young was not an employee and this appeal followed.

 

The appeals court noted that the statutes established causes of action for retaliatory or wrongful discharge, granting standing to employees who seek redress from employers for conduct enumerated in those statutes. Given that an employer-employee relationship is required to establish standing under the statutes, a court's finding that a person is not an employee would deprive that person of standing to maintain the statutory causes of action.

 

The court said that the legal incidents of the employer-employee relationship and the employer-independent contractor relationship are well established. An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work. It is not the fact of actual interference with the control, but the right to interfere, that makes the difference between an independent contractor and a servant or agent.

 

The facts in this situation showed that Young could not dictate or control the method or means of proper service. Moreover, Young testified that no mandatory duties or responsibilities are associated with the office of city sheriff. Young had no supervisor, no set hours of work, no office, no pension plan, no membership in any union, and no civil service protection. In light of these findings, the appeals court concluded that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that Young was an independent contractor and not an employee of the city.

 

Editor's Note: This case is presented to highlight the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. There was no issue of insurance coverage in this case, but employee versus independent contractor questions come up frequently in insurance coverage disputes. As both the trial court and the appeals court noted, the common-law right to control test using the facts of the situation establish the status of the individual. Here, the facts showed that the city had no right of control over Young's work, no right to control the means, manner, or method of Young's work. Therefore, Young was not an employee of the city.