Opinion ID: 1925657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The relationship between Circuit City, MHD, and Young and Brown.

Text: When Mrs. Schecter purchased her new washing machine, she was dealing, so far as she was aware, solely with Circuit City. In fact, she testified that she selected Circuit City, in part, because the firm advertised that it  Circuit City  would deliver and install the new machine and remove the old one. Nothing in the record suggests that Mrs. Schecter chose to deal with MHD, or with Mr. Young or Mr. Brown, or, indeed, that she had ever heard of any of the three. Ironically, however, any right that Mrs. Schecter may have to recover damages for a theft which occurred while, so far as she knew, Circuit City was installing a washing machine that Circuit City had sold her turns on the relationship between a different company  MHD  and the two delivery men whom, she believed, Circuit City had sent to install the machine. [4] The relationship between Mr. Young and MHD was set forth in a contract entitled Independent Truckman's Agreement. The agreement states that the parties intend to create an independent contractor relationship and not an employer-employee relationship. The contract was signed by Mr. Young on behalf of his company, Young's Trucking Mecca. The contract required Young to hire his own personnel, use his own truck and equipment, and provide a performance bond for himself and his employees. The agreement also provides that Mr. Young shall be responsible for the payment of wages and social security and withholding taxes for any of his employees. Further, the contract states: In performing services under this Agreement, Contractor [Young] will direct the operation of any equipment in all respects and will determine the means of performance including but not limited to such matters as choice of any routes, points of service of equipment, rest stops, and timing and scheduling of customer deliveries. The parties intend to create an independent contractor relationship and not an employer-employee relationship. [5] There is evidence in the record, however, that suggests that while Mr. Young was an independent contractor in form, he may have been an employee in substance. The delivery drivers were hired in very much the same manner as employees are hired, and they were trained, monitored, and supervised very much as employees are trained, monitored, and supervised. Moreover, MHD exercised substantial control over the manner in which the delivery drivers performed their tasks. Mr. Fritz testified that MHD retained delivery drivers by means of a recruiting department and through direct referrals. Fritz personally interviewed each prospective driver and decided whether or not the candidate should be hired. [6] MHD performed a background check on each delivery driver who was hired, though not on the drivers' assistants. MHD claimed that the assistants, such as Jason Brown, were the driver's employees, not MHD's. MHD provided extensive training to its delivery drivers. According to Mr. Fritz, [w]e would explain to them the ways of delivery process through Circuit City and what the rules and regulations were through their contract. Experienced delivery drivers spent a week with each new driver to instruct him on proper delivery procedures and methods. [7] MHD also kept close track of the activities of the delivery drivers, evaluating each driver for the quality of performance and the number of deliveries made. Customers were surveyed to check on the performance of the drivers, and those whose work MHD considered unsatisfactory were not retained. According to Mr. Fritz, MHD would put together the routes for the delivery drivers, although each driver had the right to ask that his route be changed if he did not consider the route feasible. The drivers were directed to call in every half-hour and report their location to MHD. [8] The progress of the drivers was monitored on tracking boards in the MHD office. The delivery drivers were required to wear MHD uniforms. Jason Brown's mother testified that she had seen her son wearing such a uniform. MHD also controlled the paper work used by the drivers. Circuit City provided MHD with a delivery ticket each time that a driver made a delivery. The drivers had to turn in the tickets on the morning after the delivery of the merchandise, so that MHD could calculate their compensation. The practical consequence of this arrangement, as Mr. Fritz acknowledged, was that the next morning, [the delivery drivers] came into the dock, loaded their trucks, went out and made their home deliveries for the rest of the day, and then we would see them the next morning. A fair inference from this acknowledgment is that most of the drivers worked for MHD on a daily basis, rather as employees might be expected to work. The delivery drivers were paid by the delivery, and they received checks from MHD twice per month. The amount of payment was based on the number of deliveries and the distances travelled. MHD also retained the right to discharge its delivery drivers, without notice if the discharge was for cause, and on sixty-days notice without cause. After Young and Brown were suspected of stealing Mrs. Schecter's valuables, Young was suspended for sixty days. Mr. Fritz called the sixty-day period probation. After having been placed on probation for sixty days, Mr. Young left MHD and made no further deliveries for the company.