Robinson v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., Civ. No. 94-296-M.
Decision Date | 03 May 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 94-296-M. |
Citation | 899 F. Supp. 848 |
Parties | Dale S. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and Bruce Jordan, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Russell F. Hilliard, Upton, Sanders & Smith, Concord, NH, for defendants.
Dale Robinson, pro se.
Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint is written in a style difficult to understand. He seems to be raising federal and state causes of action based on discrimination at the hands of his alleged employer because of his disability, seasonal affective disorder. His federal claim(s), at least, suffer from fatal defects.
To the extent plaintiff attempts to assert a claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, his complaint necessarily fails because he does not allege that his employer qualifies as a "program or activity receiving federal financial assistance" (and it is clear that neither Defendant Bankers Life and Casualty Company, nor Defendant Bruce Jordan, is such an activity). To the extent plaintiff references, and asserts a claim under, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., his complaint is defective in at least two ways. First, the unrebutted affidavit filed by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss establishes that:
Given these uncontroverted circumstances, and applying an "economic realities" test to determine whether Defendant Banker's Life was plaintiff's employer, it is apparent that it was not. As in Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir.1991), the general absence of company control over plaintiff's activities, the independent nature of his work (including methods and scheduling), the financial independence of his operation, the skills required, and the understanding of the parties as expressed in their written agreement all combine to establish plaintiff's status as an independent contractor. As Defendant Banker's Life was not plaintiff's employer within the meaning of the ADA (42...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dykes v. DePuy, Inc.
...22, 1997); Aberman v. J. Abouchar & Sons, Inc., No. 95-C-5423, 1997 WL 51601, at * 1 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 4, 1997); Robinson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 899 F.Supp. 848, 849 (D.N.H.1995). The parties' agreement on this point obviates any need for us to decide the question here.7 Although Dykes ad......
-
USEEOC v. CATHOLIC KNIGHTS INS. SOCIETY, 94 C 5744.
...transportation, filed taxes as self-employed, and had a contract stating he was an independent contractor); Robinson v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 899 F.Supp. 848 (D.N.H.1995) (applying the "economic realities" test, and finding independent contractor status where the insurance agent sign......
-
Sloan v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.
...the most significant factors related to control are more consistent with independent contractor status. In Robinson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 899 F.Supp. 848, 849 (D.N.H.1995), the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that a Bankers Life insurance agent, wi......
-
Birchem v. Knights of Columbus
...(Title VII); United States EEOC v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 915 F.Supp. 25 (N.D.Ill.1996) (Title VII); Robinson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 899 F.Supp. 848 (D.N.H.1995) (ADA). Although some aspects of KOC's relationship with its field agents would be consistent with employment, the bala......