IRAC Brief
IRAC Brief
Law/531
Facts of the Case
According to United States District Court District of Massachusetts Civil Action 11-10313-GAO (2013), Anderson, Silva, Johnson and Funches contracted through a limited liability company by the name of SLS to perform delivery services work on behalf of HDA (United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013).
Plaintiffs Case
Each driver was provided with their truck
Trucks provided to the contractors bore Sears Logo
Uniforms bore both Sears and HDA logos
Each driver hired their helpers and paid their helpers directly
Drivers worked full-time and solely for HDA (while under contract)
(United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013)
HDAs Argument
Plaintiffs contracted through SLS and not directly with HDA as individuals; therefore, HDA should not be a litigant in this case
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C (See Case 1:11-cv-10313-GAO Document 99 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 5)
(United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013)
IRAC
Issue:
The issues below are the reasons this case has been brought to court. The court must provide the answers to these reasons in order to begin the rule assessment portion of IRAC
(1) Were the plaintiffs (Anderson, Silva, and Funches) misclassified as independent contractors by HAD?
(2) Were deductions taken from plaintiff’s wages in violation of wage laws?
Rules
Below are the rules found in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B. These rules must be applied to the facts of the case to assess the fault or culpability of the litigants. Below is cited via United States District Court District of Massachusetts Civil Action 11-10313-GAO (2013).
(1) The individual is free from control and direction in connection with the
(2) Performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and the service is performed outside the usual
Law/531
Facts of the Case
According to United States District Court District of Massachusetts Civil Action 11-10313-GAO (2013), Anderson, Silva, Johnson and Funches contracted through a limited liability company by the name of SLS to perform delivery services work on behalf of HDA (United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013).
Plaintiffs Case
Each driver was provided with their truck
Trucks provided to the contractors bore Sears Logo
Uniforms bore both Sears and HDA logos
Each driver hired their helpers and paid their helpers directly
Drivers worked full-time and solely for HDA (while under contract)
(United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013)
HDAs Argument
Plaintiffs contracted through SLS and not directly with HDA as individuals; therefore, HDA should not be a litigant in this case
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C (See Case 1:11-cv-10313-GAO Document 99 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 5)
(United States District Court District of Massachusetts, 2013)
IRAC
Issue:
The issues below are the reasons this case has been brought to court. The court must provide the answers to these reasons in order to begin the rule assessment portion of IRAC
(1) Were the plaintiffs (Anderson, Silva, and Funches) misclassified as independent contractors by HAD?
(2) Were deductions taken from plaintiff’s wages in violation of wage laws?
Rules
Below are the rules found in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B. These rules must be applied to the facts of the case to assess the fault or culpability of the litigants. Below is cited via United States District Court District of Massachusetts Civil Action 11-10313-GAO (2013).
(1) The individual is free from control and direction in connection with the
(2) Performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and the service is performed outside the usual