## Facts

- Patrice Robin Lynne Hanson performed as an exotic dancer at the Hide-Out Saloon operated by BCB, Inc.
- She obtained the work by responding to an advertisement and auditioning for the saloon’s owner.
- Dancers were compensated by sharing in cover charges and tips and received one free drink; they supplied their own costumes and performed to music provided by the saloon.
- The saloon imposed work-related requirements, including a pantyhose rule to comply with state law, enforceable by termination.
- There was conflicting evidence about scheduling: testimony indicated either the owner set dancers’ nights or dancers signed up for shifts on a calendar; if a dancer could not work, the dancer was responsible for finding a substitute.
- Hanson was shot and killed in the saloon’s parking lot while leaving work.
- Her dependents (husband and child) filed for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting she was an employee.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence and the proper legal test supported the Industrial Commission’s conclusion that Hanson was an independent contractor rather than an employee under Idaho workers’ compensation law.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the Industrial Commission.
- The Court held Hanson was an employee of the Hide-Out Saloon and therefore within workers’ compensation coverage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with employee status.

## Legal Principles

- The primary consideration in employee vs. independent-contractor classification is the putative employer’s right to control the time, manner, and method of work.
- Additional factors may be considered, including method of payment, who supplies instrumentalities, the right to hire and fire, the extent of control exercised, and whether the work is part of the regular business of the alleged employer.
- Supplying personal items used in performance (such as costumes) is only one factor and is not dispositive where control and business integration indicate employment.
- Workers’ compensation coverage is construed broadly where a reasonable view of the evidence supports employee status.

## Conclusion

Because the saloon hired through audition, retained termination power, imposed enforceable performance and dress requirements, and depended on the dancers’ performances as a core part of its business, the Court concluded the Commission erred in treating Hanson as an independent contractor and directed the claim to proceed on the basis that she was an employee.


Hanson v. BCB, Inc., 754 P.2d 444 (Idaho 1988)