Opinion ID: 1843765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: skill

Text: The next factor federal courts often utilize as an aid in determining a worker's economic dependence deals with the relative skill involved in the service rendered. Again, the trial court made no explicit findings regarding this factor other than to state that Hageman's work involved various types of maintenance and repair including electrical, plumbing, keys and locks, heating and air conditioning, servicing and equipment, and general maintenance and repair. The trial court also noted that no special training was provided by the Defendants and that Hageman relied on his own experience. As with the other factors, the mere presence of a high level of skill is not itself indicative of independent contractor status. Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d at 1060. Skills are not the monopoly of independent contractors. Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1537. Many skilled workers who do not exercise significant initiative in locating work opportunities have been held to be employees under the FLSA. [Emphasis added.] Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d at 1060, ([t]he nurses in the present case possess technical skills but nothing in the record reveals that they used these skills in any independent way. Rather, they depended entirely on referrals to find job assignments....); Robicheaux v. Radcliff Material, Inc., 697 F.2d at 667 (noting that employee welders exercised little initiative and planning respecting their skills as welders). In this case, there is nothing to indicate that Hageman exercised business-like initiative in exploiting his skills. See Donovan v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., 757 F.2d 1376, 1387 (3rd Cir. 1985). Hageman utilized his skills only on work orders he was provided at the site office at Park West Gardens. As noted earlier, the fact that Hageman could have worked for other people is not relevant. The controlling economic realities are reflected by the way one actually acts. Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment, Co., Inc., 527 F.2d at 1312.