Idaho Court Says Bodies of Tandem Skydivers Are Not "Equipment"
Acknowledging that one of the important factors to be considered in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor, rather than an employee, is whether the worker brings important “equipment” to the job, the Supreme Court of Idaho held a magistrate court erred when it concluded a tandem skydiving instructor’s body was “no less a piece of equipment than the airplane that took them up to the appropriate altitude.” The Court added that the district court’s attempt to soften the magistrate court’s language was to no avail in curing the defect, and the case had to be remanded for a proper determination of whether the instructors were employees, and not independent contractors [Idaho ex rel. Industrial Comm’n v. Skydown Skydiving, LLC, 2020 Ida. LEXIS 67 (Apr. 16, 2020)].
Background
After the Idaho Industrial Commission notified the skydiving company (“the company”) that it was in violation of Idaho Code § 72-301, by treating its tandem skydiving instructors as independent contractors, and not as employees, it filed a civil law suit seeking penalties and injunctive relief. The magistrate court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the skydivers were independent contractors. The district court affirmed and the Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court indicated the basic issue before the Court was whether the magistrate court had properly utilized the so-called “four-factor balancing test” to determine if the company had s sufficient “right to control” the instructors. Those four factors were:
- Direct evidence of the right to control the employee;
- The method of payment, including whether the employer withholds taxes;
- Whether the employer or worker furnishes “major items of equipment;” and
- Whether there is a right to terminate the employment at will and without liability.
The Court noted that several factors tended to show that the skydivers were indeed independent contractors. They had relative freedom in setting schedules, were paid on a “per jump” basis, and had to be certified as having the appropriate skills to perform tandem jumps with customers.
Major Items of Equipment
The Court held that the magistrate court misapplied the right to control test when it found that the tandem instructors own bodies were evidence that they supplied vital tools to each jump. The Court stressed that, Indeed, the main issue on appeal concerned the magistrate court’s finding that “[t]he human bodies of the instructors are no less a piece of equipment than the airplane that took them up to the appropriate altitude.”
The Court added that rather than correcting this error of law on appeal, the district court instead attempted to reinterpret the magistrate court’s finding, explaining that the court was actually referencing the skydiver’s skill as the provided equipment.
The Case of the Exotic Dancer
The Court cited Matter of Hanson, 114 Idaho 131, 754 P.2d 444 (1988), in which the Court held that an exotic dancer’s body was not a “major item of equipment,” for purposes of the right to control test. Virtually every worker brought his or her own body to the worksite. If that were part of the test, it would be a meaningless requirement. The Court added:
Notwithstanding the training and expertise of the tandem jumpers, it cannot be seriously contested that the most essential pieces of equipment to [the company’s] business were the airplanes and parachutes. While the tandem instructors may have provided some of their own personal equipment, i.e., altimeters, goggles, and cameras, each of those tools was practically useless until an airplane delivered the jumpers to a designated point in the sky and the parachute allowed them to safely descend in tandem back to the hangar. Indeed, the [magistrate court’s] statement that supplying the airplane and parachute systems “means nothing to the customer” is manifestly incorrect considering the absolute necessity of both items for successfully completing each jump.
Remand Necessary
Concluding that the magistrate court misapplied the right to control test and the district court erred in attempting to reconstruct that analysis with its generous reinterpretation, the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the factual findings and conclusions without consideration of the tandem instructors’ bodies as a major piece of equipment.