Second, Ms. Harris disputes that the statements of other commercial agents and the statements of Arlie and Leahy contain legal findings because they purport to interpret the Sales Rep agreement. The objection is lifted. Trade officers and district chiefs can say what they understood as the agreement, although at the end of the day, the court will be the subject of the agreement. Ms. Harris obtained Mary Kay, Inc. v. Woolf, 146 S.W.3d 813 (Tex). Ct. App.
2004), in support of her position, that she was a partner of Vector and not an independent contractor. In Mary Kay, the court found that a sales manager for Mary Kay was a California employee, but the Court of Appeals ruled that Texas law, not California law, governed and decided that she was not an employee under Texas law. Some of Mary Kay`s facts are similar to those in this case – z.B. there, as here, the worker had “great discretion in the way she managed her business”, her only restriction being that the product was to be sold to end consumers (not to retail stores) and that she had limited the use of the Mary Kay trademarks. Id. at 818. In addition, the worker “did not work specified hours; she could work as much or less as she wanted. But, as Ms. Harris points out, some of Mary Kay`s facts are distinct. Above all, the employee was able to “set her own prices for cosmetics and thus control the profit she made from the sales aspect of her business”.
“He was able (and) chosen to recruit more counsellors” to help him; and “he systematically defended the internal revenue service that it was independent.” Id. In her complaint, Ms. Harris claims national and federal law. See page 2, p. All but one of the claims are claims of state law. As noted above, Vector`s main argument is that it is legitimate to judge all of Ms. Harris` claims, since no reasonable jury can conclude that she is an employee and not an independent contractor. Ms. Harris does not deny that, if she were an independent contractor and not an employee, all of her claims must be dismissed.
Ms. Harris argues, however, that there is a real factual dispute as to whether she was an employee and not an independent contractor. Under federal law, particularly flSA, a court considers the following factors when deciding whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee: as an independent or independent contractor, your child has the luxury of setting his or her own schedule around classes and extracurricular activities. Under federal law, as under state law, “the existence and degree of each factor [with respect to the status of self-employed or hard-working person] is not a question of fact, whereas the legal conclusion to be drawn from these facts – whether the workers are workers or independent contractors – is a matter of law.” Berger Transfer Storage v. Central States Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1378 (8. Cir.