Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: HERTZ CORPORATION, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court with directions to remand to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
Claimant was engaged by STARS (Special Travel Agency Representative Service Network), a marketing organization operated by Hertz Corporation. She visited travel agencies to promote Hertz's products by distributing sales materials and making presentations. Within her assigned territory, claimant chose which agencies she would visit and when she would visit them, was compensated on a per-visit basis, was not required to attend meetings, had minimal supervision and was free to sell products that did not compete with Hertz. Her contract with Hertz identified her as an independent contractor, and Hertz reported her pay on a 1099 form.
Substantial evidence does not exist to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's determination that claimant was a Hertz employee for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. An employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence demonstrates that the employer exercises control over the results produced by claimant or the means used to achieve the results (Matter of 12 Cornelia St., 56 N.Y.2d 895, 897, 453 N.Y.S.2d 402, 438 N.E.2d 1117 [1982] ). Such evidence was lacking here. Incidental control over the results produced-without further evidence of control over the means employed to achieve the results-will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship (Matter of Ted Is Back Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 485 N.Y.S.2d 742, 475 N.E.2d 113 [1984] ).
That Hertz gave claimant instruction on what to wear, what products to promote and how to make a presentation does not support the conclusion that claimant was an employee. “The requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” (Matter of Werner, 210 A.D.2d 526, 528, 619 N.Y.S.2d 379 [3d Dept.1994] ).
Order reversed, etc.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, READ and R.S. SMITH concur in memorandum. Judge GRAFFEO taking no part.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 30, 2004
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)