Nelson Ovalles worked as a cable installer for Cox Rhode Island Telecom, LLC, under an agreement with a third party, M&M Communications, Inc. The agreement stated that no employer-employee relationship existed between Cox and M&M’s technicians, including Ovalles. Ovalles was required to designate his affiliation with Cox on his work van, clothing, and identification badge, but Cox had minimal contact with him and limited power to control the manner in which he performed his duties. Cox supplied cable wire and similar items, but the equipment was delivered to M&M, not to Ovalles. On a workday, while Ovalles was fulfilling a work order, his van rear ended a car driven by Barbara Cayer. a. Is Cox liable to Cayer?
b. Are independent contractors the same as employees?
c. What is the difference?

a. Is Cox liable to Cayer?

No

b. Are independent contractors the same as employees?

No

c. What is the difference?

Ovalles cannot be considered Cox's employee because Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him.

Independent contractors are not covered by labor and employment laws, and they are responsible for paying their own taxes, including self-employment taxes. A contractor does not work on a salary basis, their work and pay must be specified in a contract.

Explanation:

This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.

The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.

Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.

Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.

The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.