Question

Frank Frausto delivered newspapers for Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., under a renewable 6- month contract called a “Delivery Agent Agreement.” The agreement identified Fausto as an independent contractor. Phoenix collected payments from customers and responded to customer complaints regarding delivery. Frausto was assigned the route for his deliveries and was required to deliver the papers within a certain time period each day. Frausto used his own vehicle to deliver the papers and had to provide proof of insurance to Phoenix. Phoenix provided Frausto with health insurance, but did not withhold taxes from his weekly income. One morning while delivering papers, Frausto collided with a motorcycle ridden by William Santiago. Santiago filed a negligence action against both Frausto and Phoenix. Phoenix argued that it had no liability for the accident because Frausto was an independent contractor, and under therefore Phoenix was not the “master” and could not be called to account for the wrongs of its “servant” under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

a. Discuss the factors a court would consider in determining whether Frausto was an employee or independent contractor to Phoenix.

b. If you were sitting as the court, what would you decide? Was Frausto an independent contractor or employee? Are there any other facts or factors you would consider before making that decision?

Li worked for Packard Bioscience, and Schmeizl was her supervisor. In March, Schmeizl asked Li to call Packard’s competitors and pretend to be a potential customer in order to obtain pricing information and literature on their products. Li refused because she believed that the requested work was illegal and suggested that Schmeizl speak with the legal department who simply advised against the practice. Schmeizl insisted, Li continued to refuse, and Schmeizl wrote negative performance reviews because Li was unable to get the requested information. Li was ultimately terminated for poor performance and brought a wrongful discharge action. Do you think that Li could prevail in such an action?

Answer 1

a. As Per the contract between frausto and phonix frausto is independent contractor as it clearly mention in agreement between them.

b. Since in agreement it clearly stated that frausto is independent contractor so i am also consider frausto as contractor because we cannot go beyond the agreement, but when we give answer we also consider that phonix is also rsponsable for compansation because phonix is also provide health insurance to frausto .

as per the case factors li is prevail the action because li give suggestion to superior for legal action.as in that case li is not guilty of any misconduct as Li is working in their area she cannot go beyond the law so li is prevail in that case