John Weary vs. William S. Cochran

Question: Analysis of John Weary, Plaintiff-appellant, v. William S. Cochran, et al., Defendants-appellees, 377 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004). Answer: The name of the case for case law analysis is John Weary, Plaintiff-appellant, v. William S. Cochran, et al., Defendants-appellees, 377 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004). This case was decided in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit opinions. It was filed and decided on 29th July 2004 ("FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions.", 2016). The history of this case was such that this case was on appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee wherein the District Court had dismissed the complaint of John Weary alleging that he had claims against and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company under the state law of Tennessee and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq (Letizia, 2003). The brief facts of the case are that the company Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company employed for carrying out its business General Agents and Special Agents. Mr. Cochran was hired as a General Agent by the Company and the products exclusive rights to market were given to him in Tennessee (S. Forman B. Thelen, 2004). He further hired 21 Special Agents, and Mr. Weary was one of them. The employment contract of Mr. Weary mentioned that he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the company. Mr. Weary's contract was terminated, and he filed a complaint stating that since he is 40 years it was due to his age that his employment had been terminated therefore violation by the company of state law of Tennessee and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The Plaintiff argued that, he was an employee and that Cochran and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Fired him because he had become 40 years and this became a factor in his termination. The Defendant argued that Mr. Weary was only an independent contractor and not Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company's employee. The main issue of this case was that whether Mr. Weary was an employee of Mr. Cochran or the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. In this case, the court analyzed the test of "common law agency" in which the court was required to consider the rights of the hiring party to control the means and manner in which the accomplishment of the product takes place. The court opined that though there were two factors that favoured Mr. Weary's characterization as the employee of the company which is (i) the long duration of the relationship between Mr. Weary and the Company, and (ii) the fact that Mr. Weary's hiring was part of the regular business of the Company. However, only these two factors do not offset the evidence which is overwhelming which indicates that Mr. Weary was nothing but an individual contractor and not the employee of the company ("Sixth Circuit Issues Opinions Concerning Employee versus Independent Contractor Status", 2016). The rule that this decision laid down was for providing guidance to the employers so that they would be able to structure the relationship of the employment in a way which establishes clearly workers as contractors who are independent. References FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit case and opinions.. (2016).Findlaw. Retrieved 12 July 2016, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1033918.html Letizia, J. (2003). Independent Contractors Versus Employees: Determining When the Line Has Been Crossed.Home Health Care Management Practice,15(2), 164-165. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084822302239306 Forman, A. B. Thelen, J. (2004). Sixth Circuit Issues Opinions Concerning When Individuals are Employees Versus Independent Contractors. Retrieved from https://www.martindale.com/labor-employment-law/article_Miller-Canfield-Paddock-Stone-PLC_83318.htm Sixth Circuit Issues Opinions Concerning Employee versus Independent Contractor Status. (2016).Michigan Manufacturers Association. Retrieved 12 July 2016, from https://mimfg.org/NewsInfo/News/DNNArticleDetailView/tabid/690/ArticleId/1239/Sixth-Circuit-Issues-Opinions-Concerning-Employee-versus-Independent-Contractor-Status.aspx