Outdated or Unsupported Browser Detected
DWD's website uses the latest technology. This makes our site faster and easier to use across all devices. Unfortunatley, your browser is out of date and is not supported. An update is not required, but it is strongly recommended to improve your browsing experience. To update Internet Explorer to Microsoft Edge visit their website.

Unemployment Insurance - Worker Classification

Part 2: Six of Nine Conditions - General Private Employers

Condition Five - Redo Unsatisfactory Work (Case Studies)

The individual is obligated to redo unsatisfactory work for no additional compensation or is subject to a monetary penalty for unsatisfactory work.

Note: This condition replaced condition 6 under the old law. The old law is cited in these cases only for those propositions that remain applicable.

Case Studies Relevant to Condition Five

LIRC decisions

Is not obligated to redo unsatisfactory work for no additional compensation nor is subject to a monetary penalty for unsatisfactory work:

  • Owen Jensen, UI Dec. Hearing No. 11401161AP (LIRC Aug. 19, 2011) – Owen Jensen wrote scripts and narrated instructional videos for an Illinois business that produced instructional video presentations involving insurance products. He was paid by the day, and there was no evidence that he was obligated to redo unsatisfactory work for no additional compensation, nor was there evidence that he was subject to a monetary penalty for unsatisfactory work.

Is obligated to redo unsatisfactory work for no additional compensation or is subject to a monetary penalty for unsatisfactory work:

  • Ali v. Acute Care, Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 13600624MW (LIRC Aug. 7, 2013) - Zulfiqar Ali performed services as an emergency room physician for Acute Care, Inc., a business that contracted with hospitals to staff their emergency rooms. His agreement with Acute Care included a provision in which he agreed to indemnify and hold Acute Care harmless from all expenses, claims, and liabilities arising out of his work. Such a provision satisfies this condition. He was also required to carry malpractice insurance and did so, also satisfying this condition. Both provisions indicate that he would be subject to a monetary penalty for unsatisfactory work. Note: This case includes analyses under both the old law and the new law.

  • Elie v. City Business USA LLC, UI Dec. Hearing No. 11608771MW (LIRC Mar. 28, 2012) - Tannette Elie performed services as a journalist for City Business USA LLC, a business journal. She might be required by City Business to revise her articles, and would not receive additional compensation for doing so. Note: This case includes analyses under both the old law and the new law.

  • Bentheimer v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, UI Dec. Hearing No. 10006546JV (LIRC Aug. 16, 2011) – Kathleen Bentheimer performed services as an insurance salesperson for Bankers Life & Casualty Company, an insurance company. Her agreement with Bankers Life included an indemnification provision requiring her to hold harmless and to indemnify Bankers Life from all claims, demands, suits, losses, etc., arising from her performance default or negligence. LIRC includes an extended discussion of this new condition in the law, concluding that an indemnification provision satisfies this condition. Note: This case includes analyses under both the old law and the new law.

Further Reading and Research

Read and research further LIRC, circuit court and court of appeals cases on Condition Five:

  • EE 450.02e - Employee - s. 108.02(12)(bm)2.e. - obligation or penalty for unsatisfactory work.