Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
794 P.2d 138 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor depends on the totality of the circumstances, with the primary factor being the principal's right to control the manner and means by which the work is performed, rather than the labels used in a contract.
Facts:
- Frank Frausto entered into a 'Delivery Agent Agreement' with Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (PNI) to deliver newspapers.
- The agreement, prepared by PNI, designated Frausto as an 'independent contractor' for a renewable six-month term.
- PNI specified the distribution point where Frausto picked up papers, provided and owned the delivery list of addresses, and set the deadline for delivery.
- PNI could unilaterally add or remove customers from Frausto's route without changing his set weekly pay.
- The contract required Frausto to deliver papers bagged and banded, allowed a PNI employee to accompany him on his route for verification, and permitted PNI to terminate him for failing to provide 'satisfactory service.'
- Customers paid PNI directly, and all complaints or requests for delivery changes were funneled through PNI to Frausto.
- PNI provided Frausto with health and disability insurance, but did not withhold taxes.
- While delivering newspapers on his route, Frausto's car collided with a motorcycle driven by William Santiago.
Procedural Posture:
- William Santiago filed a negligence action against Frank Frausto and Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (PNI) in the Arizona superior court (trial court).
- Both Santiago and PNI moved for summary judgment on the issue of PNI's vicarious liability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PNI, concluding as a matter of law that Frausto was an independent contractor.
- Santiago, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for PNI.
- Santiago, as appellant, petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review of the court of appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding a delivery driver's status as an employee when the employing company dictates the time, place, and manner of delivery, even if a contract labels the driver an independent contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Grant, C.J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists, and the determination of the employment relationship should be made by a jury, not by a judge as a matter of law. The court held that while a contract may label a worker an independent contractor, this label is not dispositive; the objective nature of the relationship, determined by analyzing the totality of the facts, is what matters. The court applied the multifactor test from the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220, focusing on the principal's right to control. It found that PNI exercised significant control by dictating the time for pickup and delivery, the area covered, the manner of delivery (bagged and banded), and the specific customers. PNI's broad power to terminate for 'unsatisfactory service,' its handling of all customer payments and complaints, and the fact that delivery is an integral part of its core business all constituted evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer an employer-employee relationship. Because reasonable minds could disagree on the nature of the relationship, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that courts will look beyond the formal language of a contract to the 'economic realities' of the working relationship to determine employment status for vicarious liability. It emphasizes that the 'right to control' is the paramount factor and that this right can be demonstrated through various means, even without direct, constant supervision. The case makes it more difficult for companies to avoid liability by misclassifying workers as independent contractors, particularly when those workers perform functions essential to the company's primary business and are subject to significant, albeit indirect, control.
Unlock the full brief for Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.