Fesler v. Whelen Engineering Co.
Facts
Plaintiff worked for Whelen for about twenty-seven years as a sales representative for product lines in an assigned multi-state territory and was paid only by commissions. Whelen's written policies repeatedly stated that sales representatives were independent contractors, not employees, and required them to pay their own expenses and taxes, while plaintiff operated through his own corporations, received 1099 forms, maintained his own office, hired and paid his own staff, and largely controlled how he worked. In 2007 Whelen terminated the relationship, stating it was going in a different direction, and plaintiff was not formally placed on notice or given a probationary period beforehand. Plaintiff claimed the policies created contractual protection against termination without notice and cure.
Issue
Whether plaintiff generated a genuine issue of material fact that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor, and if so, whether Whelen's policies created a unilateral contract of employment that Whelen breached by terminating him without just cause or without notice and an opportunity to cure.
Rule
Under Iowa law, the primary focus in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor is the extent of the alleged employer's control over the details, means, and manner of the work, evaluated through multiple factors including payroll status, method of payment, provision of tools, independent business structure, hiring of assistants, duration, regular business, party intent, and control over work progress. Employment is presumed at will unless a personnel policy creates a unilateral contract, which occurs only if the policy is sufficiently definite to constitute an offer of continued employment, is communicated to and accepted by the employee, and is supported by consideration; in determining definiteness, courts ask whether a reasonable employee would believe the employer guaranteed certain protections, considering whether the procedures are directives or guidelines, whether the language is detailed and definite or general and vague, and whether the employer can alter the procedures at will.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Rina sues claiming she was really an employee, which fact most strongly supports summary judgment that she was an independent contractor under Iowa's control-focused test?