Appeal of Aspen Contracting NE, LLC
164 N.H. 88
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Aspen Contracting NE, LLC is a Delaware LLC with its place of business in Houston, Texas, using the trade name Noble Logistics and no New Hampshire office.
- Aspen contracted with PharMerica to deliver products to jails, nursing homes and long-term care facilities in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont, using Aspen drivers who sign independent contractor agreements.
- Claimants Bishop-Chapman, Eastman, and Trumble entered into contracts with Aspen on Oct. 1, 2008; June 10, 2009; and Oct. 12, 2009, respectively, and later sought unemployment benefits.
- DES initially found wages earned by the claimants and that their services did not meet the exemption test in RSA 282-A:9, III (2010).
- The Committee and the Appeal Tribunal both ruled the claimants were employees and Aspen an employer; the Appellate Board sustained those rulings, and Aspen appealed.
- The court reviews under RSA 282-A:67, II, limiting deference to the Committee and Appeal Tribunal and upholding their findings unless unauthorized, legally erroneous, or clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claimants qualify for the exemption RSA 282-A:9, III. | Aspen contends all three prongs are satisfied, freeing claimants from employment status. | DES and the tribunals held Aspen failed the three-prong test, so claimants remain employees. | Not met; exemption fails on control prong (a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of First Student, 153 N.H. 682 (N.H. 2006) (review scope on appeal of unemployment decisions)
- Appeal of John Hancock Distributors, 146 N.H. 124 (N.H. 2001) (three-part exemption burden on challenger)
- Appeal of Work-a-Day of Nashua, 132 N.H. 289 (N.H. 1989) (exemption burden on three elements)
- Lakes Region Community Services Council, 127 N.H. 386 (N.H. 1985) (distinguishes freedom from control under exemption)
- Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment and Training, 786 N.E.2d 365 (Mass. 2003) (distinguishes independent carrier scenarios)
- Express Bus, Inc. v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, 157 P.3d 1180 (Okla. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishes minimal driver control scenarios)