Chapter 35 CBS Corp. v. FCC IRAC Issue: Are Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake considered employees of CBS? Rule: Deciding whether a hired party is an employee the following elements must be fulfilled: -the source of the instrumentalities and tools -the location of the work -the duration of the relationship between the parties -whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party -the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work -the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants -whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business -and the tax treatment of the hired party Application: To determine if CBS is liable for the incident that occurred during Super Bowl XXXVIII, the elements of whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of the agency must all be fulfilled. The source of instrumentalities and tools for Jackson Timberlake were provided by CBS. The duration of the relationship between the parties was the duration of the Super Bowl performance. Jackson and Timberlake were paid a one-time, lump sum payment rather than salaries. Performances are a part of Jackson and Timberlake’s regular business. Jackson and Timberlake did not pay employee taxes. The FCC must prove that Janet and Timberlake are employees of CBS to prevail in this case. The element that was not fulfilled was if CBS had the right to give additional projects to Jackson and Timberlake. CBS does not have the right to assign additional projects to Jackson and Timberlake because they were only hired for one-time performances during the Halftime show. Conclusion: CBS is not liable under the respondeat superior because Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were independent contractors rather than employees of CBS North Atlantic Instruments, Inc. v. Haber. IRAC Issue: Will North Atlantic suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction from Haber? Rule: Employment Agreement - Keep secret and retain in the strictest confidence all confidential matters which relate to, including, without limitation, customer lists, trade secrets, pricing policies and other confidential business affairs and any affiliate and not to disclose any such confidential matters to anyone outside of any affiliate. New York law: - An agent of duty has a duty not to use confidential knowledge acquired in his employment in competition. - Duty exists during and after employment Application: For North Atlantic to prevail in this case, they have to prove Haber using confidential information in order to gain an advantage. Haber left North Atlantic and began to work for Apex. Haber used client information from North Atlantic to ask them to do business with Apex. This violates the Employment Agreement because he used the customer list from North Atlantic to gain their customers. Haber used confidential information after he left North Atlantic. This means he did not violate the Employee Agreement because he was not an employee of North Atlantic when he used the confidential information. Haber violates the New York law because it states that an agent of duty cannot use confidential knowledge acquired in his employment in competition after employment. Conclusion: Haber used confidential information from the North Atlantic to give Apex an advantage. North Atlantic will suffer irreparable harm from Haber.
