68 So. 3d 667
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hulbert performed fundraising and event-planning for the Democratic Mayoral Campaign Committee under a verbal arrangement for $3,000 per month.
- Hulbert later executed an Independent Contractor Agreement stating she was an independent contractor and that no employer-employee relationship existed.
- The contract provided reimbursement of expenses, per diem, and gas; Hulbert bore no benefits or tax withholdings typical of employees.
- Invoices listed Hulbert as 'Independent Contractor' with the Louisiana Democratic Party as the 'Customer.'
- Hulbert terminated the contract on April 3, 2009; she sought unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 23:631-632.
- Trial court found Hulbert was an independent contractor, denying penalties and attorney’s fees; Hulbert appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hulbert is an employee or independent contractor for penalties. | Hulbert argues employee status entitles penalties/fees. | Defendants contend Hulbert was an independent contractor. | Independent contractor, not employee; penalties denied. |
| Whether a oral contract can establish an independent contractor relationship. | Oral contract existed prior to written one as valid agreement. | No valid contract until written; but later agreement confirms. | Valid oral contract can establish independent contractor status. |
| Whether control over Hulbert’s work indicates an independent contractor relationship. | Loftin directed work, showing employment control. | Loftin provided guidance but did not control day-to-day work; more independent in nature. | Court credited Loftin's account; right to control not shown; independent contractor finding sustained. |
| Whether Hulbert’s work constituted 'specific piecework' under the contract. | Work not limited to specific tasks; broader fundraising duties imply employee status. | Contract called for specific piecework via fundraising/events. | Contract required specific piecework; independent contractor status affirmed. |
| Whether the contract provided a fixed price for the undertaking and a termination-at-will provision affects status. | AT-will termination suggests employment. | Fixed monthly fee with defined term; termination without cause exists but not dispositive. | Totality of circumstances supports independent contractor status despite termination clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tower Credit v. Carpenter, 825 So.2d 1125 (La. 2002) (factors for independent contractor determination; five-factor test)
- Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972) (employer-employee – right to control analyzed)
- Jeansonne v. Schmolke, 40 So.3d 347 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (totality of circumstances; right to control central)
- Adams v. Greenhill Petroleum Corp., 631 So.2d 1231 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1994) (general services contract; not determinative of piecework absence)
- Hillman v. Comm-Care, Inc., 805 So.2d 1157 (La. 2002) (employee vs independent contractor analysis; burden on employee claimant)