Skip to main content

Higgins v. Missouri Division of Employment Security

Mo. Ct. App.July 19, 2005No. WD 64572Cited 16 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Ellis, Spinden, Howard
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's determination that cab drivers were employees entitled to unemployment insurance coverage, rejecting the owner's arguments that she did not 'pay' the drivers and that they were independent contractors.

What This Ruling Means

**Higgins v. Missouri Division of Employment Security: Court Rules Cab Drivers Are Employees** This case involved a dispute over whether cab drivers working for City Cab Co. and American Cab Co. were employees or independent contractors. The company owner, Bonnie Higgins, argued that the drivers shouldn't be entitled to unemployment benefits because she didn't directly "pay" them and claimed they were independent contractors, not employees. The Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled against Higgins. The court upheld a previous decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that found the cab drivers were indeed employees who deserved unemployment insurance coverage. The court rejected the owner's arguments about payment structure and worker classification. This decision matters significantly for workers in similar situations. It shows that courts will look beyond how an employer structures payments or labels workers to determine the true nature of the working relationship. Many employers try to classify workers as independent contractors to avoid providing benefits like unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and other protections. This ruling reinforces that workers who function as employees should receive employee benefits and protections, regardless of what their employer calls them or how they receive payment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.