Maurine M. Holt v. William W. Winpisinger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant had sufficient control over the plaintiffs performance because he trained her, supervised her work, “set out her daily routine,” and “told her what tasks needed to be done”
• holding that the plaintiff was an employee because the defendant “trained her to use office equipment, and taught her to perform many clerical tasks such as bookkeeping, typing up leases and updating the building directory”
• agreeing that plaintiffs compensation procedures differed from those of other employees, but finding that degree of control over circumstances of work was more significant factor in the analysis
• “[o]nce an employee participates in a pension plan, all of his or her years of service, whether completed before or after participation begins, count statutorily toward the ten years of vesting credit”
• “[o]nce an employee participates in a pension plan, all of his or her years of service, whether completed before or after participation begins, count statutorily toward the ten years of vesting credit”
• ERISA vesting provisions cannot be waived

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).