Opinion ID: 901065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clearly Erroneous Findings of Fact

Text: [¶ 7.] Moonlight first argues that administrative Findings of Fact 3 and 6 are clearly erroneous. These findings state: 3. Under the written agreement, Moonlight Rose agrees to provide the Agents with all flowers, tubes, uniforms and sales materials at no cost to the Agents. Moonlight Rose and the Agents further agree that Moonlight Rose establishes the price at which the products are to be sold, and the Agents are expected to remit 75 percent of the price for each flower sold to Moonlight Rose at the end of each night's business. 6. Under the written agreement, the Agents further agree that they will not compete with Moonlight Rose for a period of two years following the termination of the agreement within Minnehaha, Lincoln, and Brookings Counties, or within a 70 mile radius of these counties. The hearing examiner based these findings on the employment agreement. We have reviewed that agreement and agree that it supports the findings. [¶ 8.] Nevertheless, Moonlight argues that the non-compete clause mentioned in Finding 6 is void and therefore should not be considered. However, the enforceability of the non-compete clause is irrelevant for purposes of this appeal. What is relevant is the fact that the non-compete language used by Moonlight evinces its intent to prevent the sellers from engaging in independent work of the same nature if their relationship with Moonlight terminates. The clause is relevant because it is evidence that sellers were not engaged in an independently established trade or business. See ¶ 17, infra. [¶ 9.] Moonlight next argues that Findings of Fact 11 and 16 are clearly erroneous in light of the testimony presented at the administrative hearing. Finding 11 states: 11. Because the Agents do not have coolers in which to store flowers for a long period, he or she picks up the flowers at Moonlight Rose's place of business each evening that he or she is going to sell. Agnes Hoff, the owner of Moonlight Rose, instructs each Agent where to sell flowers that evening if there is more than one agent selling that evening. [¶ 10.] Moonlight argues Agnes Hoff does not instruct each seller where to sell flowers each evening if there is more than one person selling. However, before the administrative hearing, Hoff filled out a SDUID questionnaire that asked, does the firm assign a specific territory to the worker? Hoff answered in the affirmative. Notwithstanding that answer, Hoff testified at the administrative hearing that I have suggested routes, different sales people work different routes. Relying on this testimony, Moonlight argues that Finding 11 is clearly erroneous. It claims that Hoff merely suggested, rather than assigned routes. However, in light of Hoff's written answer, Finding of Fact 11 is not clearly erroneous. [¶ 11.] Finding of Fact 16 states: 16. Moonlight Rose provides one uniform to each Agent, coolers in which to transport the flowers for the evening, baskets in which to carry the flowers into the establishments, and a nametag. The nametag bears the name of the Agent and Moonlight Rose. Moonlight Rose requires the Agent to wear a tuxedo uniform, however, Agents can make some modifications to that tuxedo uniform. Moonlight argues that this finding is misleading because it only supplied the tubes, coolers and baskets as a convenience. However, Moonlight's written agreement unequivocally states that Moonlight agrees to provide [the sellers] with all flowers, tubes, uniforms and sales materials at no cost to [seller]. Considering Moonlight's written agreement, Finding 16 is not clearly erroneous. [¶ 12.] Moonlight also argues that it did not require the sellers to wear its uniform (the tuxedo). Moonlight relies on the hearing testimony of Hagedorn who stated that Moonlight only suggested that they wear the tuxedo. Again, however, Moonlight's employment agreement provided that Moonlight agrees to provide [sellers] ... uniforms ... at no cost to [the seller]. Furthermore, although each seller testified that Moonlight did not require them to wear the tuxedo, the sellers further testified that they did wear the tuxedo or some similar attire. [¶ 13.] Moonlight finally argues that although Findings of Fact 19 and 23 are technically correct, the findings are misleading. Those findings state: 19. Albers, Long, Dykshorn, and Hagedorn do not have coolers or baskets in which to store or transport flowers, do not have business cards, and do not advertise under any business listing. 23. The Agents do not have sales tax licenses. Moonlight Rose pays the sales tax due on the sale of the roses. [¶ 14.] Although Moonlight challenges Findings 19 and 23, it provided no evidence that all of its sellers had their own baskets or business cards. [3] Additionally, sellers testified that they did not advertise, nor did they have their own business listings. Finally, the evidence established that sellers did not have their own sales tax license. Moonlight paid the taxes under its sales tax license until this dispute started, at which time sellers attempted to obtain sales tax licenses. Findings of Fact 19 and 23 are not clearly erroneous.