No$.14-1430$

Keller v$.$ Miri Microsystems

Page $6$

Carpet, $548$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d at $145).$ To assist our application of the oconomic$-$reality test, we have identified six factors to consider? ${?}^3$

the permanency of the relationship between the parties; $2)$ the degree of skill required for the rendering of the services; $3)$ the worker's investment in equipment or materials for the task; $4)$ the worker's opportunity for profit or loss, depending upon his skill; $...5)$ the degree of the alleged employer's right to control the manner in which the work is performed$[$; and $]...$

$[6)]$ whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business.

Id$.$ at $1117$ & $n\mathrm{.}5.$ We have also considered whether the business had "authority to hire or fire the plaintiff," and whether the defendant$-$company "maintains the plaintiff's employment records." Ellington, $689$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d at $555.$ No one factor is determinative; $"[$a$]$ central question is the worker's economic dependence upon the business for which he is laboring." Brandel, $736$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d at $1120.$ Accordingly, we address each factor in turn with an eye toward the ultimate question Keller's economic dependence on or independence from Miri.

The Permanency of the Relationship

Generally, independent contractors have variable or impermanent working relationships with the principal company because they "often have fixed employment periods and transfer from place to place as particular work is offered to them, whereas 'employees' usually work for only one employer and such relationship is continuous and indefinite in duration."Baker v$.$ Flint Eng' $g$ & Constr. Co$.,137$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $1436,1442(10$th Cir. $1998)($internal quotation marks omitted$).$ If a worker has multiple jobs for different companies, then that weighs in favor of finding that the worker is an independent contractor. See Brandel, $736$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d at $1117.$ We may look at the length and regularity of the working relationship between the parties, see Baker, $137$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d at $1442,$ but even short, exclusive relationships between the worker and the company may be indicative of an employec$-$employer relationship. See Secy of Labor y$.$ Laurizen, $835$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $1529,1537(7$th Cir. $1987)("[$H$]$owever temporary the relationship may be $[$between migrant workers and farm owner,$]$ it is permanent and exclusive for the duration of that harvest season." $)$

${?}^3$ In Brandel, we carsidered whether the plaintifls were employees under the FLSA on appeal fram the district court's denial of an injunction after the district court had made specific lactual findangs. See Brandel, $736$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d at $1115,1117$