The Supreme Court of Idaho held that a magistrate court erred when it concluded a skydiving instructor’s body was a “piece of equipment” in determining whether the worker was an independent contractor rather than an employee. They said that though one of the factors in this employee/contractor distinction is whether the worker brings important “equipment” to the job, the magistrate court had still made a mistake.
The Idaho Industrial Commission had notified a skydiving company that they were in violation of Idaho Code 72-301, by treating their tandem skydiving instructors as independent contractors and not as employees. They filed a civil suit seeking penalties and injunctive relief. The magistrate court dismissed the suit, finding that the skydivers were independent contractors. The district court affirmed, and the Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court looked at the “four-factor” test to determine if the company had the right to control the instructors, which consists of:
- Direct evidence of the right to control the employee
- The method of payment, including whether the employee withholds taxes
- Whether the employer or worker furnishes “major items of equipment”
- Whether there is a right to terminate the employment at will and without liability
The Court noted that several factors tended to show the skydivers were independent contractors and not employees since they had a lot of freedom in setting up their schedules, were paid on a “per jump” basis and had to be certified to perform tandem jumps with customers. But they held that the magistrate court misapplied the right to control test when they determined the instructor’s bodies were evidence that they supplied important tools to each jump. They determined that rather than correcting this error, the district court had them tried to reinterpret the magistrate court’s finding by explaining that the court was referencing the skydiver’s skill as the provided equipment. The Supreme Court determined both courts had been faulty and remanded the case for reconsideration of the factual findings and conclusions, without considering bodies as a major piece of equipment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.