Aggressive, inexpensive and experienced Rolling Hills California Business litigator
at your service
323-842-2194  Call now for free consultation for your business dispute matter in Rolling Hills California
info@losangelesattorney4u.com  

            © Daniel B. Wolfberg
Rolling Hills California Attorney At Law
2001 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90403-5664
323-842-2194 phone
323-372-3764 fax 
Check another one of our other websites  www.civlitigation.com
New York Traffic Tickets
Rockland County Speeding ticket
Los Angeles Wills and Trusts Attorneys
New York Criminal Lawyer
NYC Traffic ticket defense
attorney adverting
323-842-2194 info@losangelesattorney4u.com

No manager, supervisor or employee of [Gateway] has any authority to enter into an agreement for employment for any specified 3 Varisco also cites the fact that the application he filled out for Gateway is titled an "employment" application, and that an LAUSD form refers to him as Gateway's employee. The title of the form is of little weight, and LAUSD's characterization is of no weight at all. He also argues that Gateway's contract with LAUSD prohibited Gateway from using subcontractors. The original contract between Gateway and LAUSD (dated March 31, 2003) contained such a restriction, but the relevant contract, the one operative during Varisco's relationship with Gateway, provides that "Contractor may use subcontractors in performing the services." 8 period of time or to make an agreement for employment for any specified period of time or to make an agreement for employment other than At-Will terms." Legally, Varisco relies on cases such as Burlingham v. Gray (1943) 22 Cal.2d 87, and Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, both of which recite the rule that "'One of the means of ascertaining whether or not this right to control exists is the determination of whether or not, if instructions were given, they would have to be obeyed.' [Citation.] The real test has been said to be 'whether the employee was subject to the employer's orders and control and was liable to be discharged for disobedience or misconduct . . . [Citations.] 'Perhaps no single circumstance is more conclusive to show the relationship of an employee than the right of the employer to end the service whenever he sees fit to do so.'" (Burlingham, supra, 22 Cal.2d at pp. 99-100; see also Toyota Motor Sales, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 875 ["the unlimited right to discharge at-will and without cause has been stressed by a number of cases as a strong factor demonstrating employment"].)