Darlene Hoyt v. Career Systems Development Corp.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Darlene Hoyt appeals the judgment entered in favor of Defendant Career System Development Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Plaintiff asserts that the district court erred in its instruction to the jury regarding the “right to control.” We disagree. The district court properly instructed the jury that, though the right to control is the most important factor in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, it is not the only factor. Under California law, the jury was required to consider secondary factors, such as whether the right to discharge at will existed, if specialized skills were needed for the work, and who supplied the tools and place of work. See S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 , 256 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 769 P.2d 399, 404, 408-09 (Cal.1989). In any event, the district court’s instructions told the jury only that the additional factors may show that she was an employee. Thus, it is difficult to see how Plaintiff could have been prejudiced by that instruction.

Plaintiff also argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment…