F & G DISTRIBUTORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a decision by the Department of Labor and Employment Security, finding that a claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The court emphasized the lack of effective control by the distributor over the claimant and the contractual agreement between the parties.
The claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee. The evidence demonstrated a lack of effective control by F&G Distributors, Inc. over the claimant, and the contractual provision stating the claimant was not an employee was a strong indicator of the parties' intent.
“All the evidence at the hearing held before the Special Deputy demonstrated that F & G Distributors, Inc., exerted no effective control over the claimant-salesman and was concerned only with profits earned.”
Establishes the factual basis for the court's decision regarding control.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceF & G Distributors, Inc. (F&G) appealed a decision by the Department of Labor and Employment Security that found a claimant-salesman to be an employee…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employee Vs. Independent Contractor Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the decision of the Special Deputy and order of the Department of Labor and Employment Security which found the claimant involved herein was an “employee” within the meaning of section 443.036(17), Fla.Stat. (1983). All the evidence at the hearing held before the Special Deputy demonstrated that F & G Distributors, Inc., exerted no effective control over the claimant-salesman and was concerned only with profits earned. The evidence presented compels a determination that the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an employee.1 United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cosmo Personnel Agency, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 407 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966). Accordingly, the order' ünder review is reversed.
. One piece of evidence, the contract between the claimant and F & G Distributors, Inc., specifically provided:
The parties hereto agree that Demonstrator [claimant-salesman] is not and shall not be treated as an employee for Federal, state or local income and employment tax purposes or for any other purposes, with respect to the services to be performed and/or amounts earned by Demonstrator and paid by Company [F & G Distributor’s, Inc.] pursuant to this Agreement.
Demonstrator shall not be entitled to any benefits provided by Company to employees, including, but not limited to, unemployment insurance or workmen's compensation coverage.
Although such a contractual provision is not conclusive, it is a strong indication that the parties intended to create a principal-independent contractor relationship. Canto v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966). Further, the other evidence established facts concerning the relationship substantially similar to the controlling case of United States Tel. Co. v. State, Dep’t of Labor & Employment Security, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Refco, Inc. v. Sarmiento, 487 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…n the factors relevant to our decision. It is apodictic that the degree of control exercised by the company is a principal consideration in determining employment status. F & G Distributors, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 478 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellee is employed in a highly regulated industry with strict compliance standards. As the company’s policies…
-
F.L. Enters., Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 515 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…dicates F.L. Enterprises and Jou-ben considered the solicitors to be independent contractors, VIP Tours v. State, Department of Labor & Employment, 449 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); F & G Distributors v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 478 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) and the fact that Jouben could hold other employment (though not in the same field). See Unique Construction Co., Inc. v. Department of Labor & Employment, 472 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The referee’s determination that F.L.…
-
Fla. Home Health Servs., Inc. v. State, 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985), but by a host of recent decisions, unacceptably ignored by the appellee, which have so held on indistinguishable facts. E.g., F & G Distributors, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 478 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Systematic Distribution Corp. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 466 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Cantor v. Robert Cochran & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966)
- United States Tel. Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lopez v. Amourie Llorens and Carmen Llorens, 407 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Cosmo Pers. Agency of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. State, 407 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)