Document: 503 U.S. 318 112 S.Ct. 1344 117 L.Ed.2d 581 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitionersv.Robert T. DARDEN. No. 90-1802. Argued Jan. 21, 1992. Decided March 24, Syllabus Contracts between petitioners Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. al. and respondent Darden provided, among other things, that would sell only policies, enroll him in a company retirement plan for agents, he forfeit his entitlement to benefits if, within year of termination 25 miles prior business location, sold insurance Nationwide's competitors. After termination, began selling those charged Darden's new activities disqualified from receiving benefits, which then sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA). The District Court granted summary judgment on ground was not proper ERISA plaintiff because, common-law agency principles, an independent contractor rather than, as requires, "employee," term defines "any individual employed by employer." Although agreeing "most probably qualify employee" traditional law Appeals reversed, finding definition inconsistent with ERISA's policy purposes, holding can "employee" simply showing (1) had reasonable expectation receive (2) relied this expectation, (3) lacked economic bargaining power contract out benefit forfeiture provisions. Applying standard, found remand been affirmed. Held: 1. used incorporates criteria identifying master-servant relationships. Where statute containing does helpfully define it, presumes Congress means unless it clearly indicates otherwise. See, e.g., Community Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 730, 739-740, 109 2166, 2172-2173, 104 811. nominal is completely circular explains nothing, contains no provision either gives specific guidance term's meaning or suggests construing incorporate principles thwart congressional design lead absurd results. Since multifactor test here adopted, see, id., at 751-752, S.Ct., 2178-2179, shorthand formula determining who all incidents employment relationship must be assessed weighed one factor being decisive. NLRB Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 111, 64 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; United States Silk, 331 704, 67 1463, 91 1757; Rutherford Food Corp. McComb, 722, 1473, 1772, distinguished. Pp. 322-327. 2. case remanded determination whether qualifies principles. P. 328. 922 F.2d 203 (CA 4 1991), reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. George R. Ragsdale, Raleigh, N.C., petitioners. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae. Marion G. Follin, III, Greensboro, respondent. Justice SOUTER 1 In we construe appears § 3(6) (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(6), read 2 * From 1962 through 1980, Robert operated according terms several contracts signed Co., promised and, exchange, agreed pay commissions sales scheme called "Agent's Compensation Plan" (Plan). Plan consisted two different programs: "Deferred Incentive Credit Plan," annually credited agent's account sum based performance, "Extended Earnings paid agent, upon equal total renewal fees previous 12 months. 3 Such were contractual terms, however, Plan's also after stopped representing Nationwide, ever induced policyholder cancel its policies. November exercised right end Darden. A month later, became agent doing old office, policies reacted charge have entitled claimed nonforfeitable because already vested ERISA. 1053(a). 5 brought action 1132(a), enables "participant" enforce substantive provisions elsewhere employee former employer . may become eligible any type plan. ." 1002(7). Thus, claim succeed if 1002(6). 6 It point Nationwide. applying extent unspecified, our decision 1757 (1947), court " 'the factual context' Mr. shows employee." Order May 23, 1985, reprinted Pet. Cert. 47a, 50a, quoting Ins. America, 390 254, 988, 19 1083 (1968). 7 Fourth Circuit reversed. 796 701 (1986) (Darden I). observing "Darden most law, 705, 'declared purposes' ERISA, 706, supra, U.S., 713, 1468, 131-132, 861-862, 1170 (1944), specifically statement purpose Act, 1001.1 therefore held "(1) [pension] [benefit plan] provisions." 203, 205 (CA4 1991) II) (summarizing Court, standard set Appeals. 717 F.Supp. 388 (EDNC 1989). II, supra.2 8 due course, filed petition certiorari, October 15, 1991. 502 ----, 294, 116 239 (1991). We now reverse. II 9 often asked where it. Most recently confronted problem 811 (1989), sculptor nonprofit group each copyright ownership statue commissioned artist. dispute ultimately turned whether, 101 Copyright 1976, 17 101, "prepared scope her employment." Because nowhere defined unanimously applied "well established" principle 10 "[w]here uses accumulated settled common infer, otherwise dictates, established these terms. past, when has 'employee' without defining concluded intended describe conventional understood doctrine. Kelley Southern Pacific 419 318, 322-323 [95 472, 475-476, 42 498] (1974); Baker Texas & 359 227, 228 [79 664, 665, 756] (1959) (per curiam); Robinson Baltimore Ohio 237 84, 94 [35 491, 494, 59 849] (1915)." 2172 (internal quotations omitted). 11 While supported reading observations, general rule stood authority decision. So too should stand here. employer," nothing. As rest cite, do find, giving suggesting adopt ERISA,3 summarized Reid: 13 "In hired party agency, consider hiring party's control manner product accomplished. Among factors relevant inquiry are skill required; source instrumentalities tools; location work; duration parties; assign additional projects party; discretion over how long method payment; role paying assistants; work part regular business; benefits; tax treatment party." 2178-2179 (footnotes 14 Cf. Restatement (Second) Agency 220(2) (1958) (listing nonexhaustive relationship); Rev.Rul. 87-41, 1987-1 Cum.Bull. 296, 298-299 (setting forth twenty guides various contexts). "no magic phrase find answer, decisive." 258, 991. 15 taking tack, cited 120-129, 855-856, proposition "the content context particular federal 'to construed "in light mischief corrected attained." ' I, F.2d, turn Hearst, 124, 857. But interpreted purposes National Labor Relations Social respectively, feeble precedents unmooring law. case, neither defined,4 imply something broader than definition; opinion, amended so demonstrate usual keys meaning. See 256, 989 ("Congressional reaction [Hearst ] adverse passed amendment. [t]he obvious [which] courts apply distinguishing employees contractors Act"); 1948, ch. 468, 2(a), 62 Stat. 438 (1948) (amending provide "does include who, rules applicable employer-employee relationship, status contractor") (emphasis added); see W.M. Webb, 397 179, 183-188, 90 850, 852-855, 207 (1970) (discussing Silk ). 16 To sure, did not, strictly speaking, "overrule" interpretation statutes, since Constitution invests Judiciary, Legislature, final statutory construction endure just many legislative revisitations, Reid's presumption signaled abandonment Silk's emphasis 'in attained.' At oral argument, tried subordinate Reid 1772 adopted broad Fair Standards (FLSA). And States, while rejecting position, that, enacting modified advance, way defined, Act's "remedial purposes." Brief Amicus Curiae 15-21.5 supports position. FLSA evidently derives child labor Food, 728, 1475, face, goes beyond counterpart. FLSA, like verb "employ" expansively mean "suffer permit work." 52 1060, 3, codified §§ 203(e), (g). This latter definition, whose striking breadth previously noted, stretches cover some parties might such strict application lacks provision, textual asymmetry statutes precludes reliance cases concept "employee." 18 Quite apart inconsistency precedents, Circuit's analysis reveals approach infected circularity unable furnish predictable first element test, ostensibly enquires into employee's "expectations," "created 'employees' them future," establishing "a comprehensive program agents," 707. thought irrelevant clause "limited" pension "it precisely sort employer-imposed condition anticipations outlaw enactment ERISA." Id., 707, n. added). claimant's actual effectively deemed inconsequential, ibid., but relief, itself depends very begs question. infects test's second prong well, considers claimant "expectation" "remaining 'long years,' substantial period time, 'employer's' service, foregoing significant providing [his] retirement." 706. enquiry factual, seen objects be: "expectations" (as case) unnecessary nature required "reliance" left unclear. Moreover, "reliance," whatever entail, could apparently results claimants identical jobs enrolled plans. Because, example, failed make much retirement, satisfied 206, whereas more provident colleague exactly same contracts, saved rainy day, not. 20 Any severely compromise capacity companies figure their "employees" what, extension, pension-fund obligations will be. offer paradigm determinacy. generally turns variables employer's knowledge, thus permitting categorical judgments about similar job descriptions. comport, moreover, recent understanding, reflected difference contractor. III 21 noted actually decide issue. reverse proceedings consistent opinion. 22 ordered. Congress's declaration "many years losing anticipated benefits," plans "have important affecting stability successful development industrial relations," necessary "assur[e] equitable character financial soundness." 1001. None passages deals class beneficiaries. Deferred subject regulation Extended 208. denied cross-petition sought review conclusion. 295, 240 State." 740, 2173, (1989). (in part) 49 450 (1935). "include," other, unspecified occupations, "an officer corporation." 647. both cite Department "Opinion Letter" support separate positions, Respondent 34-35, 16-18, owe letter's legal conclusions deference Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 844, 2778, 2782, 81 694 (1984).

Category: 7