# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 19 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro be rt W. Kram er, III , do in g b us in es s as CIS In te rn et Serv ic es ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,

v.

Cas h Li nk Sy st em s, A Fl or id a co rp or at io n; Am eri P O S, Inc . a Flo rid a

co rp or at io n; OTB Pro du ct s, A Fl or id a co rp or at io n; AMP Do ll ar Sa vi ng s, In c. an Ariz on a co rp or at io n d oi ng bu si ne ss as M or tg ag eLead s.t v, d oi ng bu si ne ss as Lead s.t v; Heal th st op , Inc . a Mi nn es ot a co rp or at io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as He al th Sto p Sh op ; M ic ha el Mo eb eck , a Mi nn es ot a res id en t; Jo se ph Ing ers ol l, a M in ne so ta

res id en t; Int ern et Serv ic es Zoca lo , a Cal ifo rn ia co rp or at io n; GZ Med ia , Inc . a New
Yor k c or po rat io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as 2 4/ 7 Do wnl oa ds ; TEI Ma rk et in g Gro up , a

Fl or id a co rp or at io n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s,

Nati on al Cred it Sy st em s, In c. a New Yor k c or po rat io n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee ,

Je rry Po ol e, a Fl or id a res id en t; Carm en Ly m an , a Mas sa ch us et ts res id en t, al so kn own as C arm en Ro dr ig ue z; Kevi n Her tz , a Cal ifo rn ia res id en t; Mi hi r Ten eja, a
Fl or id a res id en t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 12 , 20 12
Fil ed : M ay

28 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ro be rt Kram er al le ge d th at Nati on al Cred it Sy st em s (“ NCS”) co nd uc te d a

sp am e-m ai l cam

pa ig n th at ha rm ed hi s bu si ne ss , in vi ol at io n of Io wa an d fed eral la w.
Afte r a be nc h tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red jud gm en t in fav or of NCS an d di sm is se d 1

Kram er’s cl ai m s. Kram er ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

Ro b e r t Kram er own ed an d op erat ed CIS In te rn et Serv ic es (“ CIS” ), a sm al l

In te rn et se rv ic e pr ov id er in Cl in to n, Io wa. Kram er cl ai m s th at be twee n 2 0 0 1 a n d

20 03

, sp am e-m ai ls flo od ed CIS’ s s e r ve r, in te rfer in g wit h th e ab il it y of CIS’s

cu st om ers to acce ss th e In te rn et

. Man y of th e sp am e-m ai ls ad ve rti se d th e de bt

co ll ect io n s erv ic es of NC S.

Afte r fil in g an in it ia l co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t 30 0 un na m ed de fen da nt s, Kram er fil ed

an am en de d co m

pl ai nt in 20 04

, na m in g NCS, a New Yor k co rp or at io n, a s a
de fen da nt

, an d as se rti ng th at NCS was res po ns ib le fo r m an y of th e sp am e-m ai ls th at

da m ag ed CIS. Kram er al le ge d vi ol at io ns of th e Io wa an ti -s pa m st at ut e in effe ct at th e

ti m e, Io wa Co de § 71 4E.1 (2 00 3) (rep eal ed 20 05 ), th e fed eral Rac ke te er In flu en ced

an d Co rru pt Or g a n i z a t io ns Act, 18 U.S.C. § 19 62 , a nd th e fed eral Co m pu te r Frau d

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es R. W ol le

, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-an d Abu se Act, 18 U.S.C. § 10 30

. He al so br ou gh t se ve ral Io wa co m m on -la w cau se s

of act io n. NCS d en ie d t he all eg at io ns , and th e cas e p ro ceed ed to a be nc h t ria l.

At t ria l, Kram er so ug ht to pr ov e th at W il li am St ol ars , a sal es m an , sen t t he em ai ls on be ha lf of NCS. The e-m ai ls at is su e ad ve rti se d NCS’s se rv ic es , were si m il ar

to ot he r NCS ad ve rti se m en ts , a nd co nt ai ne d accu rat e co nt act in fo rm at io n fo r NCS.

Bu t al l of th at in fo rm at io n was pu bl ic ly av ai la bl e, an d an in fo rm at i o n

- t e ch no lo gy

sp eci al is t te st ifi ed th at t h e e

- mai ls ha d be en ro ut ed th ro ug h se rv ers in fo rei gn

co un tri es , so no ne of th em co ul d be tra ced to th e or ig in al se nd er. Ch ris Reh ko w an d
Ly nn Gol db erg , th e on ly sh areh ol de rs of NCS, bo th te st ifi ed th at th ey ne it he r se nt th e

sp am e-m ai ls th em se lv es no r au th or iz ed an y em pl oyee to sen d t he e-m ai ls

.

Kram er an d hi s fo rm er at to rn ey , Pet e W el lb or n, te st ifi ed th at St ol ars ad m it te d

to se nd in g th e e-m ai ls

. In hi s de po si ti on , W el lb or n cl ai med th at he cal le d th e

te le ph on e nu m

be r li st ed in th e e-m ai ls an d sp ok e wit h St o l ars

. Acco rd in g to

W el lb or n, St ol ars ad m it te d th at he wor ke d fo r NCS an d th at he was se nd in g th e sp am

e-m ai ls on be ha lf of NCS. Kram er te st ifi ed th at he sp ok e wit h Reh ko w an d St ol ars , bo th of who m ack no wled ge d th at St ol ars was se nd in g th e e-m a i l s

. A cco rd in g to

Kram er, Rehk ow adm it te d th at St ol ars was in ch arg e of m ark et in g an d was ru nn in g

th e e-m ai l cam

pa ig n. Reh ko w de ni ed ev er sp eak in g wit h Krame r

. St ol ars was

un av ai la bl e to tes ti fy

be cau se he di ed be fo re t he tri al

.

Gol db erg ack no wled ge d th at a sa l e s p e r s on co ul d ha ve co nd uc te d th e e-m ai l

cam pa ig n wit ho ut te ll in g hi m o r Reh ko w. Bu t Gol db erg ex pl ai ne d th at th e en ti re

sa le s fo rce— in cl ud in g St ol ars —o pe rat ed as in de pe nd en t con tra ct or s, rat he r th an as

em pl oyees. NCS i nt ro du ced sev eral sa m pl e co nt ract s th at it ex ecu te d with it s s al es

fo rce, al l o f whi ch pr ov id ed th at th e sa le sp eo pl e wou ld be in de pe nd en t co nt ract or s.

Alt ho ug h St ol ars ’s co nt ract was lo st

, Gol db erg st at ed th at St ol ars wou ld ha ve si gn ed

a fo rm co nt ract si m il ar t o t he co nt ract s i n e vi de nc e.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t e nt ered jud gm en t in fav or of NCS. The co ur t cred it ed th e

te st im on y of NCS’s pr in c ip al s, de sc rib in g th ei r te st im on y as “ th e m os t pe rs ua si ve

ev id en ce” of St ol ars ’s rel at io ns hi p to NCS. It al so no te d th at Kram er an d W el lb or n

ha d reas on s “ to st ret ch th e tru th ab ou t w ha t St ol ars to ld th em on th e ph on e,” an d

fo un d th at th ey were “ no t su ffi ci en tl y cred ib le ” to su pp or t ke y pa rts of th ei r te st im on y
ab ou t t h e te le ph on e cal ls

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e a fin di ng ab ou t whe th er

St ol ars se nt th e sp am e-m ai ls

. Bu t th e co ur t ru le d th at ev en if he di d, th en NCS was

no t li ab le

, be cau se St ol ars was an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or , no t an em pl oyee as Kram er

as se r t e d

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ ne it he r Re[h ]kow no r Gol db erg , n or an y ot he r

au th or iz ed NCS ag en t, in it ia te d SPAM e

- mai l s to m ark et NCS’s de bt co ll ect io n
bu si ne ss or f

or an y ot he r pu rp os e.”

W e di sm is se d Kram er’s fir st at te m pt to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on fo r

la ck of a fin a l ju d g men t. Now th at al l rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s ha ve be en di sm is se d

wit h pr ejud ic e, th e jud gm en t be lo w is fin al

, an d we ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th is ap pe al

. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1.

II.

Kram er co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n r e je ct in g two al te rn at iv e

th eo rie s of reco ve ry

. Fi rs t, he as se rts th at NCS’s pr in ci pa ls

, Reh ko w an d Gol db erg ,

au th or iz ed th e sp am e-m ai l ca m pa ig n, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng to

th e co nt rary. S e co nd

, he arg ue s th at NCS is acco un ta bl e fo r th e act io ns of it s

em pl oyees, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by co nc lu di ng th at St ol ars was n ot an

em pl oyee of NCS. W hi le Kram er’s st at e-l aw cl ai m s are go ve rn ed by th e su bs ta nt iv e

la w of Io wa, se e Eri e R. Co

. v. To mpk in s , 30 4 U.S. 64 (1 93 8)

, th e st an da rd of rev ie w
is a pr oc ed ur al is su e th at is go ve rn ed by fed eral la w. May er v. Gar y Par tn er s & Co

. , 29 F.3 d 33 0, 33 4 (7 th Ci r. 19 94 ); Feld er v. Uni te d St at es , 54 3 F.2 d 65 7, 66 4 (9 th Ci r.

19 76 ); se e New be rr

y v

. Bur li ng to n Bas ket Co

. , 62 2 F.3 d 97 9, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

-4

-W e th us ap pl y Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 5 2( a), wh ic h pr ov id es th at we m us t

no t s et asi de th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fi nd in gs of f act un le ss th ey

are cl earl y

erro ne ou s.

A.

K ra m er ar gue s tha t doc um en ta ry ev id en ce co nt rad ic ts th e te st im on y of Re hkow

an d Gol db er g t h a t NCS di d no t en ga ge in an y “ m as s m ai l cam pa ig ns ” or di rect

an y on e to se nd sp am e-m ai ls

. He co nt en ds th at th e in fere nc e is in es cap ab le th at th e

pr in ci pa ls em

pl oyed e-m ai l m ark et in g te ch ni qu es , b e c au se th e sp am e-m ai ls

ad ve rti se d NCS’s se rv ic es wit h a va li d e-m ai l ad dr es s, th e m es sa ge s were si m il ar to

va rio us on li ne ad ve rti se m en t s p o s te d by NCS, an d NCS el se whe re en co ur ag ed

cu st om ers to co nt act th e co m pa ny by e-m ai l

. Thi s ev id en ce m ig ht su pp or t an

in fere nc e th at NCS’s pr in ci pa ls were in vo lv e d w i t h th e e-m ai ls

, bu t it do es no t

co m pe l th at co nc lu si on

. The e-m ai ls co ul d no t be tra ced to NCS, an d anyon e co ul d

h a ve co m po se d th e e-m ai ls by co pyin g an d pa st in g te xt fro m NCS’s web si t e o r i t s

ot he r ad ve rti se m en ts

. The refo re, th e te st im on y of Re h k o w a n d Gol db erg on th is

sc or e was no t co nt rad ic te d b y th e d oc um en ta ry

ev id en ce.

Kram er al so co nt en ds th at th e co ur t sh o u l d h av e cred it ed hi s te st im on y th at

Reh ko w ad m it te d ov er th e ph on e th at NCS was res po ns ib le fo r th e e-m ai l cam pa ig n.

Kram er rel ie s on an e-m ai l th at he sa y s was writ te n to m em or ia li ze th e co nv ers at io n.

In th e e-m ai l, Kram er wro te th at aft er he cal le d NCS to co m pl ai n ab ou t sp am e-m ai ls

,

a rece pt io ni st to ld hi m to ex pe ct a cal l from th e ch ie f ex ecu ti ve of fic er of N CS, and

th at he th en rece iv ed a cal l fro m a m an na m ed “ Ch ris ,” whi ch is Reh ko w’ s fir st na m e.
Ch ris pu rp or te dl y sa id th at “ he co ul d no t un de rs ta nd ho w an y th in g li k e t h i s co ul d

ha pp en ,” an d t ha t “ ci s.n et was n ot on th ei r li st .”

On it s face

, ho wev er, Kram er’s su m m ary of th e c a l l do es no t refl ect an
ad m is si on by R eh ko w t ha t NCS was res po ns ib le fo r th e sp am e-m ai ls

. The qu ot ed

co m m en ts are m or e ak in to a de ni al

. The di st ric t co ur t, m or eo ve r, th ou gh t Kram er’s

-5

-e-m ai l “ de se rv e[d ] le ss weig ht th an if it were no te s ha nd writ te n or pr ep ared at th e

pr eci se ti m e” of th e co nv ers at io n. The co ur t al so was ge ne ral ly sk ep ti cal of Kram er’s

cred ib il it y , sa y ing tha t he “ ex ag ge ra te d” his te sti m on y ab ou t NCS’s res po ns ib il it y an d

da m ag e s , p r o v i d ed te st im on y th at was “ no t al way s co ns is te nt wit h th e co nt en t of

do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce,” and “ ga ve gu ard ed an d un pe rs ua si ve an swe rs ” ab ou t so m e

of hi s act iv it ie s. It was no t cl ear erro r fo r th e co ur t to fin d no ad m is si on by Reh ko w.

If a wit ne ss ’s te st im on y i s “coh eren t an d faci al ly pl au si bl e,” an d is no t

co nt rad ic te d by ex tri ns ic ev id en ce, th en a di st ric t co u r t ’s de ci si on to cred it th e

te st im on y “ can vi rtu al ly ne v e r b e c le ar erro r.” And er so n v. Ci ty of Bess emer Ci ty

, 47 0 U.S. 56 4, 57 5 (1 98 5)

. The di st ric t co ur t he ard fro m K r a m er, Reh ko w, an d

Gol db erg in a be nc h tri al

, an d it fo un d NCS’s pr in ci pa ls m or e cred ib le th an Kram er.
The ev id en ce ci te d b y

Kram er d oe s n ot est ab li sh a cl ear e rro r.

B.

Kram er ne xt co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co u r t e r red by co nc lu di ng th at St ol ars

was an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or rat he r th an an em pl oyee of NCS. Kram er arg ue s th at

be cau se Sto la rs sen t t he sp am e-m ai ls as an em

pl oyee of NCS, th e co m

pa ny sho ul d

be vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r hi s act io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t m ad e no fin di ng ab ou t whe th er

St ol ars se nt th e e-m ai ls

, bu t it reject ed Kram er’s th eo ry of vi cari ou s li ab il it y be cau se

it co nc lu de d th at St ol ars was an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or

. Ass umi n g fo r th e sa ke of

an al y si s th at NCS co ul d be he ld res po ns ib le fo r th e a ct io ns of it s em pl oyee un de r
each of Kram er ’s c a u s e s o f act io n, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at St ol ars is

be tt er v ie wed as a n i nd ep en de nt co nt ract or

.

To urg e th at St ol ars was a n e m pl oyee, Kram er re li es on th e te st em pl oyed by

fed eral c o u r ts to de te rm in e whe th er a pa rty is an “ em pl oyee” fo r th e pu rp os es of

fed eral st at ut es th at us e th e te rm wit ho ut de fin in g it

. Se e Na ti on wi de Mut . I ns . C o.

v. Dar de n , 5 03 U.S. 3 18 , 3 22

- 2 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; Cmty . f or Cr ea ti ve No n- Vio le nc e v. Reid

,

-6

-49 0 U.S. 73 0, 73 9- 41 (1 98 9)

. In Dar de n an d Re i d

, t h e S up rem e Co ur t ap pl ie d th e

fo ll owi ng co m

m on -la w tes t:

In de te rm in in g whe th er a h ire d p art y is an em pl oyee un de r th e ge ne ral

co m m on la w o f ag en cy , we co ns id er th e hi rin g pa rty’ s rig ht to co nt ro l
th e m an ne r an d m ean s by wh ic h th e pr od uc t i s ac co m pl is he d. Am on g th e ot he r fact or s rel ev an t to th is in qu iry are th e sk il l req ui red ; th e so ur ce of th e in st ru m en ta li ti es an d to ol s; th e lo cat io n of th e wor k; th e du rat io n of th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es ; whe th er th e hi rin g pa rty ha s th e rig ht to as si gn ad di ti on a l pr ojec ts to th e hi red pa rty; th e ex te nt of th e hi red pa rty’ s di sc ret io n ov er whe n an d ho w lo ng to wor k; th e m et ho d of

pa y m en t; th e hi red pa rty’ s ro le in hi rin g an d pa y in g as si st an ts ; whe th er th e wor k is pa rt of th e reg ul ar bu si ne ss of th e hi rin g par ty; whe th er the
hi rin g p art y

is in bu si ne ss ; t he pr ov is io n of em pl oyee be ne fit s; an d th e
ta x t reat m en t o f th e h ire d p art y

.

Dar de n , 50 3 U.S. at 32 3- 24 (q uo ti ng Reid

, 49 0 U.S. at 75 1- 52 ). No si ng le fact or is

de te rm in at iv e, Reid , 4 90 U.S. at 7 52 , and co ur ts sh ou ld co ns id er “ al l as pe ct s of th e

wor ki ng rel at io ns hi p.” W il de v. Cn ty

. of

Ka nd iy oh i

, 15 F.3 d 10 3, 10 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ).

Bu t th e fir st fact or

—wh et he r th e hi r i n g p a r ty ha s th e rig ht to co nt ro l th e m ean s of

pe rfo rm an ce— is a “ pr im ary co ns id erat io n.” Sc hw ie ge r v. Fa rm Bu re au Ins . Co. o f

Neb

. , 20 7 F .3d 48 0, 4 84 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

Alt ho ug h th e pa rti e s d o n o t men ti on it

, Io wa la w se ts fo rth a si m il ar bu t no t

id en ti cal an al y si s fo r distin gui shi ng em pl oyees fro m in de pe nd en t co nt ract or s. Io wa’s

te st tak es acco un t o f te n fa ct or s:

(1 ) th e in di vi du al ’s rig ht to co nt ro l th e ph y si cal co nd uc t an d pr og res s of
th e wor k, ex cep t as to fin al res ul ts ; (2 ) whe th er th e in di vi du al was on th e

em pl oyer ’s p ay ro ll ; (3 ) th e m et ho d of pa y m en t, whe th er by t im e or by job ; (4 ) th e in di vi du al ’s ob li ga ti on to fu rn is h ne ces sa ry to ol s, su pp li es ,
an d m at eri al s to acco m

pl is h th e wor k; (5 ) th e ex is te nc e of a co nt ract fo r th e pe rfo rm an ce by a pe rs on of a cert ai n pi ece or ki nd of wor k at a fix ed

-7

-pr ic e; (6 ) th e in de pe nd en t na tu re of th e in di vi d u al ’s bu si ne ss ; (7 ) th e

in di vi du al ’s em

pl oym en t of ass is ta nt s, with th e rig ht to su pe rv is e th ei r
act iv it ie s; (8 ) th e ti m e fo r whi ch th e in di vi du al is em pl oyed; (9 ) whe th er
t h e wor k is pa rt of th e reg ul ar bu si ne ss of th e em pl oyer; an d ( 1 0 ) t h e in te nt of t he pa rti es

.

Fesl er v. W

he le n Eng ’g Co

. , 68 8 F.3 d 43 9, 44 2- 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng Io wa Mut

. In s. Co

. v. McCa rt hy

, 57 2 N.W .2d 53 7, 54 2- 43 (Io wa 19 97 )). As un de r fed eral la w,

“ th e pr im ary fo cu s is on th e ex te nt of co nt ro l by th e em pl oyer ov er th e de ta il s of th e

al le ge d e m

pl oyee’s work .” McCa rt hy , 57 2 N.W.2d a t 5 42

.

W he th er an in di vi du al is an em pl oyee or an in d e p e n d e n t co nt ract or is a

qu es ti on of la w, so we co ns id er th e qu es ti on of em pl oym en t st at us de no vo

. Fesl er , 6 8 8 F

. 3 d at 44 2. Bec au se th is cas e tu rn s on fact or s co m m on to th e an al y si s u n d e r
bo th fed eral an d s ta te law, we an al y ze al l o f Kram er’s cl ai m s t og et he r.

Kram er di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin d i ng s th at th e te st im on y of NCS’s

pr in ci pa ls was “ th e m os t pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce” of “ St ol ars ’ rel at io ns hi p to NCS,” an d

th at th e te st im on y w a s “ en ti rel y co ns is te nt ” wit h th e sa m pl e co nt ract s in ev id en ce.

A typic al sa m

pl e co nt ract pr ov id ed th at th e sa le s rep res en ta ti ve “ is at al l ti m es un de r

th is Agr eem en t an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or to [NCS],” t h a t he wou ld be “ free of

Co m pa ny d ire ct io n an d co nt ro l,” an d th at he “ sh al l de te rm in e hi s ow n h o u r s , da y s,

an d m et ho ds of se ll in g Nati on al Cred it Sy st em s’ se rv ic es .” Acco rd in g to Kram er,
ho wev er, ot he r ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d Reh ko w an d Gol db erg an d sh owe d th at St ol ars

was an em

pl oyee.

Kram er’s m ai n arg um en t fo r em pl o y ee st at us is th at NCS co nt ro ll ed th e

act iv it ie s o f St ol ars an d o th er sa le sp eo pl e by re qu iri ng a ri go ro us tra in in g re gi m en

. Kram er rel ie s on two pi eces of ev id en ce: th at NC S g a v e it s sa le sp eo pl e a le ng th y

sa le s m an ua l wit h sp eci fic di rect io ns ab ou t ho w to se l l N C S ’s se rv ic es , an d th at

-8

-Reh ko w te st ifi e d he wou ld cal l th e sa le sp eo pl e fiv e ti m es a week to di sc us s th ei r

pr og res s an d o ffer in st ru ct io n.

W hi le it is tru e th at NCS di st rib ut ed a sa le s m an ua l an d t h a t Reh ko w

m ai nt ai ne d te le ph on e co nt act

, Kram er pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at th e sa le s fo rce was
ob li ge d to fo ll ow th e m an ua l or to acce pt Reh ko w’ s ad vi ce. In st e a d

, R e h k o w

te st ifi ed th at th e sa le sp eo pl e “ co ul d m ark et pr et ty m uc h an y way th ey wan te d to ,” an d

th at “ th ei r ti m e [was ] th ei r own ,” su ch th at th e sa le s fo rce co ul d ch oo se ho w lo ng to

wor k, a n d w h et he r to wor k fro m th e of fic e or fro m ho m e. In fact

, th e sa le sp eo pl e

u s u a l l y on ly cam e to th e of fic e two or th ree ti m es pe r week

. W he re a sa le s

rep res en ta ti ve ha s th e op ti on to se t hi s own s c h e d u l e a n d to tra in hi m se lf, he is no t

su bjec t to th e so rt of co nt ro l t h a t e xi st s in th e tra di ti on al em pl oyer-em

pl oyee
rel at io ns hi p. Se e S

ch wi eg er , 20 7 F .3d at 4 84 -8 5.

Oth er fact or s po in t in bo th di rect io ns

. So m e fav or in de pe nd en t-c on tra ct or

st at us . Sto la rs was p ai d by com m is si on . He was re sp on si bl e fo r hi s o wn t ax es an d

in su ran ce. Se e id

. at 48 6. Kram er res po nd s b y ci ti ng fact or s th at te nd to sh ow

em pl oym en t st at us : NCS pr ov id ed m ark et in g br oc hu res an d or de r fo rm s us ed by th e

sa le s fo rce; th e job req ui red no pa rti cu la r sk il ls ex cep t th os e ta ug ht by NCS; an d th e

w o r k o f th e sa le s fo rce was an in te gr al pa rt of NCS’s bu si ne ss

. The pr im ar y

co ns id erat io n, ho wev er, is th e hi rin g pa rty’ s co nt ro l ov er th e m ean s of pe rfo rm an ce,

an d we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce ta ke n as a who le

es ta bl is he s an i nd ep en de nt co nt ract or arra ng em en t. As su ch

, we reject Kram er’s

co nt en ti on th at an em

pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p m ak es NCS res po ns ib le fo r an y e-m ai l

act iv it y by Sto la rs

.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-9

-