{"id":1404,"date":"2022-08-19T21:45:39","date_gmt":"2022-08-19T21:45:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/paulyshao.com\/?p=1404"},"modified":"2022-08-26T17:02:44","modified_gmt":"2022-08-26T17:02:44","slug":"j-jammal-et-al-v-amfam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.paulyshao.com\/?p=1404","title":{"rendered":"J: Jammal et al v AmFam"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The<\/span> attorneys for the plaintiff summarize on its website the case in the following manner, \u201cThe Complaint alleges that American Family improperly classifies its agents as independent contractors when they are actually employees, reserving the right to exercise complete control over every important aspect of the agent-employees\u2019 businesses. Examples of American Family\u2019s control include, but are not limited to, maintaining ownership over their books of business, requiring them to sell only American Family insurance (excluding even products that American Family does not offer), requiring them to follow American Family\u2019s policies and procedures, and controlling the day-to-day operations of every aspect of the agent-employee\u2019s business, such as business hours, computer and telephone systems, and who the agent-employee can hire and fire.\u201d<\/p>

Judge Nugent granted the plaintiff the class certificate to go forward with the suit on 3-2-16. In the subsequent trial, the advisory jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff and concluded that American Family improperly classified its agents as independent contractors (\u201cIC\u201d) instead of employees in order to deny benefits under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act).<\/p>

The defendant appealed the case and the 6th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals ruled two to one in favor of the defendant. Judge Clay in his Dissent stated, \u201c[\u2026] the district court properly considered the Agent Agreements as relevant but not dispositive evidence of independent contractor status. No greater consideration was warranted, particularly given that the language in the Agent Agreements is contradicted by language in other internal documents, including Defendants\u2019 training manuals, and that contractual labels are particularly susceptible to manipulation such that over-reliance on them would \u2018defeat the purpose\u2019 of ERISA.\u201d<\/p>

The attorneys for the plaintiff went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who rendered a Brief of Opposition<\/em> to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari around 1-27-20. On 10-7-21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the second petition for a Writ of Certiorari. All avenues for appeal have been exhausted and the Sixth Circuit\u2019s decision would remain in effect.<\/p>

The attorneys for the plaintiff won the first 50 yards but were frustrated in the final yards. It is an outstanding act in the fight for ERISA. It will provide a road map for the future battles of claiming ERISA.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n \n
\n\n
\n
\n