Unemployment Insurance - Worker Classification

Part 1: Control or Direction - General Private Employers

Factor Four - Times or Order or Sequence (Case Studies)

Whether the services of the individual are required to be performed at times or in a particular order or sequence established by the employing unit.

Note: This factor in the new law is based upon employment status criteria found in older laws, as well as in the current law applicable to government units and nonprofit organizations. Therefore, cases decided under the new law are listed first, and the relevant cases decided under the other laws follow.

Case Studies relevant to Factor Four

LIRC Decisions

Services required at times or in particular order or sequence:

• 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. She was required to be at Bankers Life's office certain days of the week for certain hours each day. NOTE: This case includes analyses of employment status under both the old law and the new law.

Services not required at times or in particular order or sequence:

• 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. He worked in Acute Care's client's hospital, and that client established the scheduling needs, not Acute Care. NOTE: This case includes analyses of employment status 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. There was a deadline for articles she wrote, but she was able to write the articles using her own timeframe. NOTE: This case includes analyses of employment status under both the old law and the new law.


• Schumacher v. Spar Marketing Services, Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 11203182EC (LIRC Mar. 21, 2012) – Sherry Schumacher performed services as a merchandiser for Spar Marketing Services, Inc., a merchandising company. Although she had a general window of time within which to perform the services, she could choose specific times and the sequence of services performed. NOTE: This case includes analyses of employment status under both the old law and the new law.

LIRC case decided under law applicable to government units and nonprofit organizations:

• Wehrwein v. DNR, UI Dec. Hearing No. 09003063JV (LIRC Dec. 8, 2009) - Wayne Wehrwein was the successful bidder for eight Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contracts for deer removal in eight Wisconsin counties for the 2007-2008 state fiscal year.  LIRC found that the DNR did not exercise direction or control over Mr. Wehrwein given his discretion as to when he made the carcass pickups; the type of equipment used; his ability to choose the order and method of pickup; and his freedom to follow a route of his own choosing.