Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): be employees to be “teachers” — and thus covered by the retirement system’s pension plan. But the STRS determined that Nese, Williams, and Miles were not “teachers,” because they were independent contractors rather than employees when they worked as VLA instructors for Jefferson County ESC. We thus turn to the legal tests for distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. Common Law: Distinguishing Employees from Independent Contractors {¶ 33} “The chief test in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner or means of performing the work.” Bobik v. Indus. Comm., 146 Ohio St. 187, 64 N.E.2d 829 (1946), paragraph one of the syllabus. See also Foran v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 17 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 478 N.E.2d 998 (1985) (<HOLDING>). “If such right is in the employer, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work (B) holding that the tort of conversion accrues where a party exercises wrongful dominion and control over the property to the detriment of the rights of its actual owner (C) holding that one who exercises daytoday control over the employee will be considered as the employer (D) holding corporations president personally liable where he had ultimate control over businesss daytoday operations and was the corporate officer principally in charge of directing employment practices (E) holding that where daytoday operations were within sole control of the franchisee no agency relationship existed with franchisor
Output (English): holding that the tort of conversion accrues where a party exercises wrongful dominion and control over the property to the detriment of the rights of its actual owner