Opinion ID: 2361634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the LIRC's decision supported by competent and substantial evidence?

Text: Haggard argues that the LIRC erred in finding that her workers were employees and not independent contractors. Section 288.034.5, RSMo Supp.2006, provides: Service performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment subject to [Missouri's employment security] law unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the division that such services were performed by an independent contractor. In determining the existence of the independent contractor relationship, the common law of agency right to control shall be applied. The common law of agency right to control test shall include but not be limited to: if the alleged employer retains the right to control the manner and means by which the results are to be accomplished, the individual who performs the service is an employee. If only the results are controlled, the individual performing the service is an independent contractor. Haggard complains that the LIRC ignored admissions by DES's witness that support her arguments that her workers are independent contractors. Haggard highlights many of the witness's responses that followed questions by Haggard's counsel about whether workers could be classified as independent contractors if certain factors were considered. For example, Haggard's counsel suggested that if the workers were untrained that militates work as an independent contractor and DES's witness responded, Yes. This Court's review of the testimony reveals that DES's witness made no judicial admissions that should be attributed to DES to find that Haggard's workers were independent contractors. DES determines whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor pursuant to 8 CSR 10-4.150(1) and section 288.034.5. It considers 20 factors derived from federal law to determine whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship. See K & D Auto Body, Inc. v. DES, 171 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Mo.App.2005). [7] Utilizing these factors, the evidence that Haggard's workers were her employees included: she provided the workers instructions and training; [8] the workers' services were integrated into her business operations; she determined what jobs the workers would do; and she provided the workers company t-shirts and cleaning supplies. DES found that ten of the 20 factors it considers indicated an employer/employee relationship, six factors indicated an independent contractor status, and four factors were neutral. There is no magic formula for determining how many factors must weigh in favor of an employee relationship. K & D, 171 S.W.3d at 106. [9] The question for this Court is whether there was substantial evidence to support the LIRC's finding that the workers were Haggard's employees. DES presented ample evidence in support of its position that the workers were Haggard's employees. This Court finds the LIRC's decision was supported by the evidence and will not disturb its findings.