the OA says FedEx directs the results, but not the manner and means, of the Plaintiffs’ work. (OA, ¶ 1.15) More specifically, the OA provides that FedEx cannot “prescribe hours of work, whether or when the Contractor is to take breaks, what route the Contractor is to follow, or other details of performance.” (Id.) The contractual designation of the work status of a person is not conclusive for purposes of determining whether he is an employee or an independent contractor, when there is evidence to overcome such designation. Nunn, 151 S.W.3d at 401. See also, Williams, 2009 WL 2592312, at *3-4 (the mere characterization in a con tract of a party as an independent contractor is not controlling, especially when other contractual provisions evidence control); Burgess, 923 S.W.2d at 454 (<HOLDING>). Simply characterizing a party as an
holding that the agreement was not illusory because it was supported by consideration insofar as the employee and employer were equally bound by a promise to arbitrate disputes holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder holding that the fact that the defendant maintained employment records was insufficient to establish that she was a joint employer under the economic reality test holding that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and declining to permit the reality of that status to be obscured by illusory formalities in the employment contract holding that an agreement to arbitrate is illusory if as here the employer can unilaterally modify the contract