Question

Schultz v. Capital International Security, Inc. 460 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 2006) Facts: The plaintiff-agents provided security services for Schultz and his family at his Virginia residence in twelve-hour shifts. The agents were paid a daily rate for each shift; they received no extra pay for overtime. The agents had a command post at the residence, from which they observed security camera monitors, answered the telephone, and kept a daily log of all arrivals and departures. They also made hourly walks of the property, ensured that members of his family were safe when departing and arriving, sorted mail, and performed various tasks upon request of his family. In addition to their security duties, the agents were responsible for having the household’s vehicles washed and fueled, making wake-up calls, moving furniture, and doing research on the Internet. Schultz's long-time driver and travel agent, Sammy Hebri, formed a company called Capital International Security, Inc. (CIS). Hebri started CIS for the purpose of becoming Schultz's security contractor. Hebri sent a memo (dated July 24, 2002) to the agents directing them to obtain their own private security business licenses from the VDCJS and individual liability insurance so they could be classified as independent contractors. Issue: The issue is whether the bodyguards were considered to be employees or independent contractors for the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Action: You must respond to all questions below. You must use at least three sources from the class materials and do independent research. Do not combine the five discussion questions and please use the outline below for your paper. Use of the outline will help you organize your research and comments and ensure you do not miss any questions that must be addressed. Your responses to each question must be in narrative format not bullets. Use the headings below to organize your paper.

Question 1A - a. Summarize the relevant facts of the case. What is your opinion on the outcome of this case?
Question 1c - Classification Test: In the above case, what kind of classification test could have been used and what would be the result?

Answer 1

Hence the answer is given as follows,

Step-by-step explanation:

1A) In the given case, the agents who are the plaintiffs were working as security guards for Schultz and his family. There was miscellaneous work that they were required to conduct for the family. The agents were paid a daily wage and weren't paid overtime. Schultz’s driver opened a replacement company called CIS and asked the agents to get their own private security business licenses in order that they will get classified as independent contractors. So, the difficulty arises that whether the agents should be classified as employees or as independent contractors.

The agents were paid a daily wage and not a salary. Moreover, they weren't qualified for overtime pay. Employees usually get salaries and are eligible to urge over time by the overtime work. Hence the agents are independent contractors and can't be considered employees.

1C) In the given case, a hybrid classification test is often wont to check the status of whether the agents were employees or independent contractors. A hybrid classification test has characteristics of right to regulate test also as economic realities test. Schultz and his family weren't controlling the work of the agents. The agents had pre-determined work and that was conducting it in an independent manner. The agents also were paid on a day to day and didn't have a timekeeping requirement. Hence the agents can qualify as independent contractors and not employees as per the hybrid classification test.