Opinion ID: 2982813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Degree of Skill Required

Text: The second factor we consider is Keller’s skill. “Skills are not the monopoly of independent contractors.” Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1537. More important to our inquiry is whether Keller’s profits increased because of the “initiative, judgment[,] or foresight of the typical independent contractor,” or whether his work “was more like piecework.” Rutherford, 331 U.S. at 730. There is ample evidence in the record to support a finding that satellite-dish-installation technicians are skilled workers. Before technicians can begin working for Miri, they must obtain a HughesNet certification. Technicians also need basic computer skills, such as the ability to use Windows, Macintosh iOS, and WARP, Miri’s scheduling software. In addition, technicians must be able to use basic hand and power tools, know National Electrical Code provisions, and No. 14-1430 Keller v. Miri Microsystems Page 9 have the ability to identify whether the satellite was picking up a signal. Thus, Keller was a skilled worker. To a certain extent, however, every worker has and uses relevant skills to perform his or her job, but not everyone is an independent contractor. It is also important to ask how the worker acquired his skill. See Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308, 1318 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The meaningfulness of this skill as indicating that plaintiffs were in business for themselves or economically independent, however, is undermined by the fact that Knight provided most technicians with their skills.”). If a worker learned his craft through formal education, an apprenticeship, or years of experience, then it is more likely that the worker’s compensation varies with his unique skill and talent. On the other hand, if the worker’s training period is short, or the company provides all workers with the skills necessary to perform the job, then that weighs in favor of finding that the worker is indistinguishable from an employee. See id. Miri provided technicians a significant portion of the training required to obtain the HughesNet certification. First, HughesNet requires the future technician to take an online class. Next, the technician must attend a one-day, in-person class conducted by a HughesNet certified trainer. Miri’s employee, Rob Neal, conducted this training on Miri’s behalf. Thus, Miri provided Keller with the critical training necessary to do the work. Of course, a technician’s skill may affect his efficiency. But this is not the type of profession where success rises or falls on the worker’s special skill. In contrast with carpenters, for example, who have unique skill, craftsmanship, and artistic flourish, technicians’ success does not depend on unique skills: a pole mount is a pole mount, a roof mount is a roof mount, and the record suggests that it is easy to learn how to decide which is more appropriate and how to install each type of dish. Moreover, the record does not suggest that Miri, RS&I, or HughesNet selected technicians on the basis of anything other than availability and location, and therefore Miri did not select Keller for assignments because he was particularly skillful.4 Accordingly, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the degree of skill required of Keller shows that he was an employee or an independent contractor. 4 Indeed, Miri simply stated that the company was “satisfied with the amount of work and [Keller’s] work performance for the most part until toward the end.” R. 24-2 at 26 (A. Miri Dep. at 91–92) (Page ID #349). No. 14-1430 Keller v. Miri Microsystems Page 10