"their dress” and "when they work”); Corporate Express Delivery Sys., 332 N.L.R.B. at 1522 (finding that owner-operator drivers are employees because, inter alia, "[t]hey are required to display the Respondent’s logo on their vehicles and to wear certain color trousers, shirts, and shoes, if they opt not to wear uniforms”); Roadway III, 326 N.L.R.B. at 851-52 (citing, among other factors in con cluding that drivers are employees, the facts that: “they need not have any prior training or experience, but receive training from the company; they do business in the company's name"; they wear an "approved uniform"; and there is a “ 'business support package’ [that] helps ensure that the drivers’ vehicles are properly maintained"). 12 . See, e.g„ United Ins., 390 U.S. at 258-59, 88 S.Ct. 988 (<HOLDING>); Aurora Packing Co. v. NLRB, 904 F.2d 73, 76
holding the law is clear that an attorney or insurance companys misconduct is imputable to the client holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination holding that statements plaintiff made to obtain disability insurance were binding admissions that he could not perform the essential functions of his job recognizing that a material misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance application relied on by the insurer in issuing a policy renders the coverage voidable at the insurance companys option holding that the fact that the insurance agents perform functions that are an essential part of the companys normal operations is a decisive factor