Estate of Dulaney v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Mississippi Court of Appeals
805 So. 2d 643 (2002)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Debra Thomas (defendant) was hired by the Dulaney family to provide personal elder care assistance to Seymour Dulaney. Thomas was hired directly by the Dulaneys and was not represented by an agency. Thomas provided shift-based, unskilled personal care services under the full control and supervision of the Dulaney family. Thomas’s work did not require a state license. All equipment was provided by the Dulaney family, and Thomas worked in the Dulaneys’ home. Thomas was paid a fixed hourly wage, but the Dulaneys did not withhold taxes or pay into state unemployment insurance. Thomas worked for the Dulaneys for approximately four years before Seymour passed away. After Seymour’s death, Thomas applied for unemployment benefits. Thomas’s application prompted an investigation by the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (MESC) (defendant) to determine whether Thomas was an employee or an independent contractor. MESC determined Thomas was an employee entitled to unemployment benefits through Seymour Dulaney’s estate (plaintiff). Terry Dulaney (plaintiff), the executor of Seymour’s estate, appealed the classification of Thomas as an employee. The circuit court affirmed MESC’s decision. Terry appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bridges, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
