Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. State Department of Human Resources

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that contract purporting to acknowledge an individual’s status as an independent contractor was not controlling and that “[t]he relationship of contracting parties depends on all the operative facts; the label which they choose to employ is only one of those facts”
• finding an employer-employee relationship in part because an employer trained his assistants to work for him
• The Kansas Supreme Court holding that individuals defined as independent contractors pursuant to contractual language were actually employees.
• “The primary concern in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is what is done under the contract and not what it states.”
• personal care attendants for disabled person employees rather than independent contractors; disabled person controlled means, manner of job performance, including hiring, training, supervision; disabled person retained right to terminate
• primary test used in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists is whether the employer has the right of control and supervision over the work of the alleged employee and the right to direct the manner in which the work is to be performed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).