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: HUMAN PERFORMANCE, INC., Doing Business as Woodstock SPA & Wellness, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 28, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision assessing Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to massage therapists and others similarly situated.
Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness (hereinafter Woodstock), is a wellness center and day spa that provides a variety of services and employs many different professionals, including yoga instructors, exercise physiologists, aestheticians, massage therapists and nail technicians. It was assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians (hereinafter collectively referred to as therapists) who the Department of Labor regarded as Woodstock's employees. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that the therapists were Woodstock's employees and adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Evidence was presented that Woodstock established the fees charged for the services rendered by the therapists, a percentage of which they received, scheduled services for its clients during times when the therapists agreed to be available for work, fielded customer complaints, furnished the therapists with workers' compensation coverage and provided the space, equipment and supplies for the therapists to perform their services. In our view, such evidence establishes that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work so as to be considered their employer, notwithstanding other evidence in the record that would support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Kloss [Greater Saratoga Corp.-Sweeney], 220 A.D.2d 964, 633 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1995] ). Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 20, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 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)