## Facts

- Seymour Dulaney required in-home assistance and care.
- Debra D. Thomas was hired directly by the Dulaney family to provide personal elder-care services for Seymour in the family’s home.
- Thomas was not supplied by, and did not work through, a staffing or home-health agency.
- Her work consisted of shift-based, unskilled personal care assistance and did not require a state license.
- The Dulaney family controlled Thomas’s work and supervised her performance while she was providing services in the home.
- The Dulaney family provided the equipment and items needed for Thomas to perform her duties in the home.
- Thomas was paid a fixed hourly wage.
- The Dulaney family did not withhold payroll taxes and did not make unemployment-insurance contributions for Thomas.
- Thomas worked for the Dulaney family for about four years, until Seymour Dulaney died.
- After Seymour’s death, Thomas applied for unemployment benefits, prompting the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (MESC) to investigate whether Thomas was an employee or an independent contractor.
- MESC determined Thomas was an employee and that her wages were covered for unemployment purposes, chargeable to Seymour Dulaney’s estate.
- Terry Dulaney, co-executor of Seymour’s estate, challenged MESC’s determination through administrative review and then in circuit court; the circuit court affirmed the agency.
- The estate appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported MESC’s determination that Thomas provided “employment” as an employee (not an independent contractor) for Mississippi unemployment-compensation purposes.
2. Whether MESC’s decision should be reversed as arbitrary or capricious or as contrary to law under the limited standard governing judicial review of agency decisions.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment affirming MESC.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported MESC’s finding that Thomas was an employee of Seymour Dulaney for unemployment-compensation coverage.
- The court declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commission’s fact findings.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of MESC decisions is limited: a court will affirm if the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the decision is not arbitrary or capricious and does not violate statutory or constitutional rights.
- In deciding whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for unemployment purposes, Mississippi focuses on the right to control the manner and details of the work, not merely the final result.
- Facts that tend to support employee status include: the putative employer’s supervision and direction; work performed on the employer’s premises (here, the family home); employer-provided tools or equipment; and payment resembling wages (such as an hourly rate).
- A party’s characterization of the relationship (including not withholding taxes) is relevant but not controlling; the actual working arrangement governs.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals left MESC’s determination in place because the record supported a finding that Thomas performed in-home elder-care services under the Dulaney family’s control and supervision, using family-provided equipment, and was paid hourly, making her an employee for Mississippi unemployment-compensation purposes and therefore eligible for benefits chargeable to the estate.


Estate of Dulaney v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission, 805 So. 2d 643 (2002)