Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that taxicab drivers were not employees of the cab owners, radio associations, and taxicab garage in part because they were free to work as much or as little as they wanted for different cab and medallion owners each day
• determining that taxi drivers' ability to choose their shifts and decline dispatches meant the cab owners, radio associations, and garages did not control their work
• holding that taxicab drivers were not employees of the cab owners, radio associations, and taxicab garage in part because they were free to work as much or as little as they wanted for different cab and medallion owners each day
• explaining that a taxi driver can be considered an employee under Wage Act while not considered an employee under workers’ compensation statute
• noting that employer end runs around their G. L. c. 149 obligations through contractual arrangements with third parties are prohibited
• comparing the “usual course of business” of the employer against the business of its workers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).