Evans v. Dir. Ohio Dept. Job & Family Servs.
2015 Ohio 3842
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Loretta Evans owned trucks leased to Multi-Modal/MTT Logistics (a freight broker) under a "Contract Hauling Agreement." She was labeled an "owner-operator."
- Evans subcontracted drivers who signed Independent Contractor Agreements with her, received 1099s, and were paid a percentage of load revenue; drivers could refuse trips and arranged routes in practice.
- Multi-Modal recruited, hired, screened and dispatched drivers for Evans' trucks; in practice Evans had no direct interaction or supervision of drivers.
- The Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Services (director) assessed Evans as an employer liable for unemployment contributions for the drivers; the UCRC upheld liability based on Evans' alleged right to control (including via delegation to Multi-Modal).
- The Franklin County Common Pleas Court reversed the UCRC, finding Evans lacked the right to direct or control drivers and that the drivers were independent contractors; the director appealed only as to (1) reversal of UCRC decision and (2) whether drivers were employees of Multi-Modal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Director) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans was an "employer" under R.C. 4141.01(B) (i.e., had right to direct/control drivers) | Evans retained contractual right to direct operations (days, routes) and could bar drivers; she owned/maintained trucks and paid drivers — so drivers were employees for UC purposes | Drivers were independent contractors: Evans did not hire/supervise/dispatch drivers in practice; Multi-Modal performed those functions and drivers controlled routes/hours; contracts labeled drivers independent contractors | Court affirmed trial court: totality of Ohio Adm.Code 4141-3-05(B) factors supported finding Evans lacked the requisite direction/control; reversal of UCRC was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether drivers were employees of Multi-Modal | Director argued trial court erred to find otherwise or to decide that issue | Evans (and trial court) treated drivers as not employees of Multi-Modal in analysis | Court held trial court exceeded its authority in deciding drivers were not employees of Multi-Modal (issue not before the court); reversed that portion and remanded for deletion of specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Natoli v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 177 Ohio App.3d 645 (10th Dist. 2008) (trial court must appraise credibility, probative character, and weight of evidence when reviewing administrative decisions)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (1992) (definitions of "reliable," "probative," and "substantial" evidence in administrative review)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1955) (appellate standard requiring appraisal of witness credibility and evidence weight)
- Boyle v. Pub. Adjustment & Constr. Co., 87 Ohio App. 264 (8th Dist. 1950) (courts limited to matters properly before them; should not decide issues outside jurisdiction)