Summary Of Little Lamb Company
Is Mary and independent contractor or an employee?
When Little Lamb Company initially hired Mary’s services she was signed as an independent contractor. The project is managed by the contractor in terms of methods and materials. The common-law agency test in the first project confirms Mary is an independent contractor because she controlled how the work was done, Little Lamb Company only assigned her the task and paid her without managing the details of how and when to complete it. During the progression of the second project Little Lamb gave Mary materials, equipment and a schedule to adhere by during the project. Giving Mary resources and mandate her work hours meant she was now an employee of Little Lamb Company. Concluding the second
project Mary worked with Little Lamb Company for two years, confirming she was an employee expected to comply with Little Lamb’s policies, schedule and procedures.
IRS 20-factor analysis Mary’s work for Little Lamb in the second project made her an employee who: was given instructions, integrated into the business, she was supervised, continuing relationships, set schedule, full time, working at site, sequence of work, provide tools and materials, right of discharge and termination
Has the employer-employee relationship changed over the course of time?
As previously noted, Mary was initially working for Little Lamb Company as an independent contractor. Mary had the freedom to complete the project by managing how, where, and when to complete a task for Little Lamb. In the first project, Mary had the liberty to complete her work as she wished. As soon as Mary was controlled by Little Lamb regarding work hours, provide materials and requiring her to work at their site confirms that she was an employee for the second project and the next two years.
Is Mary’s release legal under the doctrine of employment-at-will?
Mary’s release is legal in terms of the employment-at-will doctrine because the employer and employee have the liberty to enter or end an employment relationship without cause (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). The employment contract would specify if she is hired as an at-will employee or if she has to work for Little Lamb for a certain amount of time. Unless her contract promises to have her return in the event of a lay-off or release, she is not eligible for automatic return after the company recovered economically. Also, if her contract as an independent contractor does not expire after the two years of employment, she may still be entitled to complete the new project after the release.
When Little Lamb Company initially hired Mary’s services she was signed as an independent contractor. The project is managed by the contractor in terms of methods and materials. The common-law agency test in the first project confirms Mary is an independent contractor because she controlled how the work was done, Little Lamb Company only assigned her the task and paid her without managing the details of how and when to complete it. During the progression of the second project Little Lamb gave Mary materials, equipment and a schedule to adhere by during the project. Giving Mary resources and mandate her work hours meant she was now an employee of Little Lamb Company. Concluding the second
project Mary worked with Little Lamb Company for two years, confirming she was an employee expected to comply with Little Lamb’s policies, schedule and procedures.
IRS 20-factor analysis Mary’s work for Little Lamb in the second project made her an employee who: was given instructions, integrated into the business, she was supervised, continuing relationships, set schedule, full time, working at site, sequence of work, provide tools and materials, right of discharge and termination
Has the employer-employee relationship changed over the course of time?
As previously noted, Mary was initially working for Little Lamb Company as an independent contractor. Mary had the freedom to complete the project by managing how, where, and when to complete a task for Little Lamb. In the first project, Mary had the liberty to complete her work as she wished. As soon as Mary was controlled by Little Lamb regarding work hours, provide materials and requiring her to work at their site confirms that she was an employee for the second project and the next two years.
Is Mary’s release legal under the doctrine of employment-at-will?
Mary’s release is legal in terms of the employment-at-will doctrine because the employer and employee have the liberty to enter or end an employment relationship without cause (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). The employment contract would specify if she is hired as an at-will employee or if she has to work for Little Lamb for a certain amount of time. Unless her contract promises to have her return in the event of a lay-off or release, she is not eligible for automatic return after the company recovered economically. Also, if her contract as an independent contractor does not expire after the two years of employment, she may still be entitled to complete the new project after the release.