Discussing The Relationship Between George And Kary As An Employee

Discussion:

The relationship between George and Kary is best described as an employer-employee relationship. George hired Kary as a peanut vendor. George possesses substantial control over his peanut vendors and their work. George not only possesses the right to control his peanut vendors work, he also applies that right. George provides his vendors with all of the necessary equipment to perform the peanut selling duties and he also requires them to wear uniforms. George allows his vendors to be creative in their work duties. However, he provides his vendors with a sheet of suggestions and strongly encourages them to follow it. The 20 factor test further confirms that Kary was an employee of George’s company and not an independent contractor. At least ten factors from the test establish Kary as an employee, while four point toward her being an independent contractor. After consolidating and applying these factors collectively, George is best described as an employer of his peanut vendors. George has the ability to control their equipment and work hours. Furthermore, he has demonstrated a continuing relationship with his peanut vendors and retains

Williams v. Cmty. Drive-In Theater, Inc., 214 Kan. 359, 359, 520 P.2d 1296, 97 (1974). Explicit permission is not required for an act to be within the scope of employment. Id. at 365, 520 P.2d at 1301. Employers may implicitly authorize certain actions based on their own conduct and actions. Id. at 365, 520 P.2d at 1301. The primary consideration is the foreseeability of the employee’s conduct, given the nature of the business. Id. at 359, 520 P.2d at 1297. An employee may be acting within the scope of employment if her intentions are for promoting the employer’s business and not personal. Id. at 365, 520 P.2d at