What information should be included in this assignment?

What information should be included in this assignment? Instructions: Assignment 1

Assignment 1 is based on Lesson 2: Defining and Distinguishing Legally Recognized Work Relationships. To complete the assignment, apply each of the four legal tests of an employer-employee relationship to each of the scenarios below. Then,

write a

300- to

400-word

analysis that leads to a conclusion about whether the person in each scenario is in an employer-employee or principal-independent contractor relationship.

As you think through each scenario, remember that no single test is determinative. Overall, your application of each of the four legal tests should reveal to you whether the work relationship featured in the scenario points more toward an employer-employee or a principal-independent contractor relationship. In other words, based on the information contained in the scenario, which type of work relationship is the person most likely in?

Your analytical response to each scenario must clearly and logically explain the following:

·      the facts you consider vital to applying the test or tests of whether an employer-employee or principal-independent contractor relationship exists·      the legal test or tests you relied on to decide whether the person featured in the scenario is in an employer-employee or principal-independent contractor relationship·      the conclusion you reached about the type of relationship the person is in.

Please ensure your response is written in full sentences and paragraphs. Your grade for Assignment 1 will be based on both the content of your response and the quality of your written analysis, and it will be evaluated according to the attached rubric.

Scenario #1: The Car Salesperson

Felix began working at Mountain Auto Sales in 1995 as a car salesperson. In 2009, his employer started requiring him and other salespeople to sign a series of one-year agreements that stated they could be terminated on 60 days' notice. Three years later, the employer required Felix to incorporate, and from that point forward, the agreements were between Mountain Auto Sales and Felix's corporation. The agreements defined Felix (and, later, his corporation) as an "independent marketing consultant" and expressly stated that they were in a principal - independent contractor relationship and not an employer-employee relationship. Felix paid for his own office space and remitted his own income taxes and workers' compensation premiums. At the same time, Mountain Auto Sales set prices, territory, and promotional methods, and Felix was limited to selling cars exclusively for Mountain Auto Sales. In 2015, Mountain Auto Sales terminated its agreement with Felix's corporation with 60 days' notice. Felix sued for wrongful dismissal damages, alleging that he was an employee.

Scenario #2: The Massage Therapist

Jane is a full-time massage therapist at Oceanside Spa. She is the only licensed massage therapist at the spa. Her contract with the spa describes her as an independent contractor (not an employee of Oceanside Spa), and it also allows her to perform massages outside of the spa. Jane's contract also states that customers at the spa are the spa's customers, not Jane's. The spa pays Jane an hourly rate, sets the price of a massage, and supplies Jane with the equipment and supplies she needs to perform massages. Jane submits an invoice every two weeks for the hours she works at the spa, plus GST and PST. Jane's pay from the spa has no deductions; she claims these herself, as a business, on her personal income tax return.

Scenario #3: The Forklift Sales Representative

Ray worked as a full-time sales representative for Movers Incorporated, a forklift supplier. He was expected to work exclusively for Movers Incorporated in a territory the company assigned to him. The company also required Ray to meet certain requirements when he was on the job in his assigned territory. For the most part, however, Ray was left alone to do his job and spent most of his work time away from the headquarters of Movers Incorporated, meeting and finding new customers. Ray used few tools beyond a car and phone. Ray owned the car he used to do his job, but Movers Incorporated paid him a monthly car allowance and covered the costs of a cellphone for work purposes. Ray was paid on commission, the rate of which was set out in a contract between him and Movers Incorporated. Ray did not invest any of his money in Movers Incorporated. The company did not make statutory deductions from his pay, and his contract described him as an independent contractor.