School District Attorney Was “Employee” Not “Independent Contractor”
The Third Department reversed the Comptroller’s finding that an attorney for a school district was an independent contractor, not an employee, requiring the attorney to refund retirement benefits already paid. In explaining the criteria for an “employee” who provides professional services, the Third Department wrote:
Where professional services are involved, the absence of direct control is not dispositive of the existence of an employer-employee relationship … . Rather, such an employment relationship may be evidenced by “control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means” …, i.e., “over-all control is sufficient to establish the employee relationship where [professional] work is concerned” … . In our view, the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner was not an employee of the school district is not supported by substantial evidence.
Here, both the school board president and the assistant superintendent testified that the school board routinely engaged in discussions about whether to retain petitioner’s services as an employee or an independent contractor, and the board continually chose the former because it was more cost effective for the school district. The testimony also indicated that, although there was no written contract with petitioner, the board and the assistant superintendent directed petitioner as to what work needed to be completed and when services were to be performed, the assistant superintendent and board reviewed petitioner’s work for its sufficiency and the president monitored petitioner’s performance and conducted annual performance evaluations. Additionally, both the testimony and documentary evidence indicated that petitioner was a salaried employee paid every two weeks by paycheck, from which income taxes, Social Security, Medicare and health insurance premiums were deducted, and petitioner received a W-2 form annually. Further, petitioner’s appointment as an employee of the school district was recognized by the County Department of Civil Service as a “School Attorney” – an exempt position – at a salary in 1974 of $3,400 per year. Matter of Mowry v DiNapoli, 516295, 3rd Dept 11-21-13