In the case of the Little Lamb Company, the perception of Mary's role as an independent contractor or employee initially indicates independent contractor, though the differentiation between the two roles become blurred when the role of additional programmer insinuates the performance of the work would be the same of an already employed programmer. When the initial project neared completion and Mary agreed to provide her programming services for another project, she initially continued to perform more of the role of independent contractor with the end of project indicating the end of the need for Mary's services.
The change in the role from independent contractor to employee took place when the company supervisor requested her to use company equipment, on company property, and to perform the work during scheduled company hours. Mary ceased the role of independent contractor based on her restriction to perform programming tasks for any other company due to the now set restrictions of location and specific work schedule set by the Little Lamb Company supervisor for the two-year timeframe until she was released due to budget cuts.
When the supervisor chose to hire a family member 30 days after releasing Mary for the same role, a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing incurred as Mary was in reality a long-term employee for the past two years terminated for no other reason other than budgetary cuts (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004). Baker, et al. v. Flint Engineering and Construction Company is a similar case where although the employees brought their own equipment, the contractor who hired them expected the rig welders to perform the function within a set schedule of hours, substantially preventing them from performing similar work for any other company (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004).
Not rehiring Mary to perform the services she performed legally...