Opinion ID: 1925657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the delivery drivers' work is part of MHD's regular business.

Text: Mrs. Schecter contends that MHD hired Mr. Young to do the work that was its principal line of business. We agree. It is undisputed that MHD was retained by Circuit City for the sole purpose of making home deliveries of appliances sold by Circuit City. Indeed, the company's name  Merchants Home Delivery  was obviously chosen to explain the company's business. The sole service that MHD performed for Circuit City was to make home deliveries. Mr. Young and Mr. Brown (and other delivery drivers and drivers' assistants) made the home deliveries for MHD. The work Young and Brown did for MHD was thus MHD's principal  indeed, its only  line of business. MHD contends that its regular business is not to deliver its clients' merchandise itself, but rather to arrange for a system of independent truckmen to deliver the merchandise of its clients. In our view, this exalts form over substance to a degree that transcends reality. [L]abels are not controlling ..., and courts deal with the substance rather than the form of transactions. EDM & Assocs. v. GEM Cellular, 597 A.2d 384, 387-88 (D.C.1991) (citation omitted). An impartial juror, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mrs. Schecter, could reasonably agree with Mrs. Schecter's attorneys, on the basis of common experience, that [c]ompanies do not typically contract out all of their main production to independent contractors; to do so renders them hollow shells. Further, according to plaintiff's counsel, [t]his evidence creates the logical inference that [MHD]'s designating the delivery drivers as `independent contractors' was really a sham to evade its responsibilities as an employer. Although this characterization may come across as somewhat pejorative, an impartial jury could, in our view, find it to be reasonably accurate.