Bargery v. Obion Grain Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Hibbs v. Hernandez

    Case No. 1:04-CV-204 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Indicia a court should consider when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor are 1) the right to control the conduct of the work, 2) the right of termination, 3) the method of payment, 4) the freedom to select and hire workers, 5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, 6) self-scheduling of work hours, and 7) being free to render services to other entities. Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-20 (Tenn. 1990); Wright v. Knox Vinyl Aluminum Co., Inc., 779 S.W. 2d 371, 373 (Tenn. 1989); Maisers v. Arrow Transfer Storage Co., 639 S.W. 2d 654, 656 (Tenn. 1982). "[A]lthough no indicia is infallible or entirely indicative, it has generally been recognized by this court that the primary test for determining a claimant's status as employee or independent contractor is the right to control."

  2. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

    283 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ind. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Analyzing the law of several states and noting that โ€œcourts looking for either a right to control or actual exercise of control . . . needn't look further [than the employment agreement] if the agreement creates a right to controlโ€

    Tennessee courts apply a seven-factor test to determine employee-independent contractor status: " (1) the right to control the conduct of the work, (2) the right of termination, (3) the method of payment, (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers, (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, (6) self scheduling of working hours, and (7) being free to render services to other entities." Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-120 (Tenn.1990). FedEx Ground believes that these factors will take the court beyond the Operating Agreement's terms and hence render class certification unsuitable.

  3. Ind. 2008)

    273 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Ind. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Applying Missouri law

    Tennessee courts apply a seven-factor test to determine employee-independent contractor status: " (1) the right to control the conduct of the work, (2) the right of termination, (3) the method of payment, (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers, (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, (6) self scheduling of working hours, and (7) being free to render services to other entities." Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-120 (Tenn.1990). FedEx Ground believes that these factors will take the court beyond the Operating Agreement's terms and hence render class certification unsuitable.

  4. In re Fedex Ground Pkg. Syst., Employment Practices (N.D.Ind. 12-13-2010)

    758 F. Supp. 2d 638 (N.D. Ind. 2010)   Cited 19 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment in defendants' favor in multidistrict litigation brought by drivers of package delivery company

    Tennessee courts look to seven factors to resolve employment status: (1) the right to control the conduct of the work; (2) the right of termination; (3) the method of payment; (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers; (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment; (6) self-scheduling of work hours; and (7) freedom to render services to other entities. E.g., Bargery v. Obion Gran Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-120 (Tenn. 1990). The right to control is the most significant factor, with the relevant inquiry being whether the right exists, not whether it is exercised.

  5. Lambert v. Tennessee Valley Authority

    No. 1:01-cv-330 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 17, 2002)   Cited 4 times
    In Lambert, the employee of a contractor ("S W") hired by the defendant ("TVA") was injured while performing maintenance on an ice condenser, a component of the facility required to be inspected, serviced, and replenished with ice once every 18 months.

    While no single factor is dispositive per se, the courts have consistently emphasized that the right to control the conduct of the work is the most significant factor. Mathis, 985 F.2d at 279; Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Tenn. 1990); Wright, 779 S.W.2d at 373; Stratton, 695 S.W.2d at 950; Masiers, 639 S.W.2d at 656; Wooten Transports, Inc. v. Hunter, 535 S.W.2d 858 (Tenn. 1976). The control test is satisfied if TVA had the right to control, regardless of whether the right to control was actually exercised by TVA. Mathis, 985 F.2d at 279; Murray, 46 S.W.3d at 176; Stratton, 695 S.W.2d at 950; Carver v. Sparta Electric System, 690 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tenn.

  6. Lindsey v. Trinity

    275 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2009)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lindsey, the company did not control the work where it "provided no instruction" with respect to how the worker did his job. 275 S.W.2d at 421.

    When determining whether a plaintiff is an employee or an independent contractor, a court may consider many factors: "(A) The right to control the conduct of the work; (B) The right of termination; (C) The method of payment; (D) The freedom to select and hire helpers; (E) The furnishings of tools and equipment; (F) Self scheduling of working hours; and (G) The freedom to offer services to other entities." Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-102(11) (2005); see also Galloway, 822 S.W.2d at 586 (quoting Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-20 (Tenn. 1990)). These factors do not preclude an examination of the work relationship as a whole but are merely a means of analysis.

  7. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Service

    822 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. 1991)   Cited 187 times
    Stating comparable factors for determining whether a work relationship is that of employer-employee or independent contractor for purposes of workers' compensation statutes

    Among the factors to be considered by a trier of fact in determining whether a work relationship is that of employer-employee or independent contractor are "(1) the right to control the conduct of the work, (2) the right of termination, (3) the method of payment, (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers, (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, (6) self-scheduling of work hours, and (7) being free to render services to other entities." See Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-20 (Tenn. 1990) (citing Masiers v. Arrow Transfer Storage Co., 639 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tenn. 1982)).

  8. Catlett v. Indemnity Ins. Co.

    813 S.W.2d 411 (Tenn. 1991)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that a borrowed employee was precluded from receiving worker's compensation from his general employer because he was the loaned servant of his temporary employer

    These factors include (1) the right to control the conduct of the work, (2) the right of termination, (3) the method of payment, (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers, (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, (6) self-scheduling of working hours, and (7) being free to render services to other entities. Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-20 (Tenn. 1990). Applying the foregoing principles to the facts contained in this record, we are persuaded that Mr. Catlett was a loaned servant.

  9. Helton v. Lawson

    No. E2018-02119-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    To establish that an employee-employment relationship existed, the claimant must be an employee and not an independent contractor or a casual employee. Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tenn. 1990). The determination of whether an individual is characterized as an employee or an independent contractor is a question of law, Cromwell Gen'l Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle, 439 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tenn. 1969), which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness.

  10. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Penney

    No. E2009-01330-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 50-6-102(11) (2005) sets forth seven primary factors to guide determinations as to whether an individual in a given work relationship is an "employee," or a "subcontractor" or "independent contractor": i) the right to control the conduct of the work; ii) the right of termination; iii) the method of payment; iv) the freedom to select and hire helpers; v) the furnishings of tools and equipment; vi) self scheduling of working hours; and vii) the freedom to offer services to other entities. See Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-20 (Tenn. 1990) (citing Masiers v. Arrow Transfer Storage Co., 639 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tenn. 1982)).