Opinion ID: 2286987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The applicability of Sloan v. Bankers Life Insurance and other independent contractor cases

Text: The City urges that common law principles of agency should be applied to determine whether a municipal judge is an employee within the scope of the MHRA. Specifically, the City cites to Sloan v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 1 S.W.3d 555, 563 (Mo.App.1999). In Sloan, an insurance salesperson sued the company he worked for, claiming age discrimination in violation of the MHRA. Id. at 560. The issue in the case was whether Sloan should be considered an independent contractor or an employee under the MHRA. Notably, the contract between Sloan and the insurance company expressly stated that he was an independent contractor, he was paid on commissions only, the company did not withhold taxes from his paycheck, nor did the company provide him with an office or supplies. Id. at 563. Sloan determined his own schedule, set his own hours, and provided for his own transportation and administrative support at his own expense. Id. The court in that case held that, for the reasons stated above, Sloan was an independent contractor; therefore, he lacked standing to bring his discrimination claim because independent contractors are not employees within the meaning of the MHRA. Id. at 563-64. Accordingly, Sloan does not apply to the facts in this case. The City also points to Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 395 (Mo.1973), and suggests that the Winebrenner eight-factor test designed to gauge the employer's right to control the means and manner of a person's service is appropriate in this case to determine whether Howard is an employee covered by the MHRA. [8] Winebrenner is a workers' compensation case involving a plaintiff who was hired by the defendant to drive one of defendant's tractors to haul a load of freight. After returning the tractor and while on the defendant's property, as the plaintiff walked to his automobile, he was struck by a tractor driven by the defendant and was severely injured. Id. at 391-92. The Court then had to determine whether the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant to assess whether the plaintiff's injuries arose out of the course of his employment such that his exclusive remedy was under Missouri workers' compensation law. Id. at 395-96. The Court in Winebrenner held that an employee-employer relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant and that the plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Id. at 396. With the exception of Sloan, almost all cases in Missouri that apply this common law analysis to distinguish employees from independent contractors are concerned with workers' compensation coverage or respondeat superior liability. See, e.g., Ascoli v. Hinck, 256 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Mo. App.2008) (vicarious liability); Leach v. Board of Police Comm'rs of Kansas City, 118 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo.App.2003) (workers' compensation). Whether an individual is an employee for purposes of receiving workers' compensation benefits or for purposes of holding the employer liable for its tortious acts involves different considerations than whether an individual is entitled to protection as an employee under the MHRA. Independent contractors are typically hired to complete a specific task, use their own tools in completing their work, are paid a fixed sum on a by-the-job basis, and are not provided with benefits. Missouri has no statutory definition of the term independent contractor. This Court has generally described an independent contractor as one who contracts to perform work according to his own methods without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of his work. State ex rel. MW Builders, Inc. v. Midkiff, 222 S.W.3d 267, 270 (Mo. banc 2007). Kansas City municipal judges are employed on a full-time basis, provided the necessary supplies and work space they need, and paid a regular salary that includes benefits. While judges must be free from the control of their employer as to the result of their work, judges are required to follow the law, show up when scheduled, and are subject to removal under certain circumstances. Kansas City municipal judges are not independent contractors as that term is generally understood. [9]