The primary employment issues involved in the Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 123 S. Ct. 1673 (2003) case was whether shareholders of a company or corporation should be counted as employees or not. The four physician-shareholders argue they should not have been counted under the ADA Act in the dismissal of Deborah Wells as the physicians also practiced as directors of a medical professional corporation (Prettyman, 2003) . Clackamas argued that the Act did not cover it as it did not meet 15 or more workers for 20 weeks as required by the ADA (Turner, 2004) . Another primary employment issue involved in this case was whether it is paramount to permit professional corporation a chance for its partnership with its employees in a bid to avoid taking the liability for employment discrimination.
The court applied the Common-law of control which it cited as the guideline to be followed since the ADA statute did not give a clear definition of the term employee. This was aimed at deciding if the four physicians cum directors were to be counted as employees (Murch, 2004) . The case is important in determining an employment relationship since, through the common law, it helps define the master-servant relationship by focusing on the master’s control over their servants. The case elaborated that a servant is an individual hired to do services on behalf of another and is subject to other’s right to control (Prettyman, 2003) . In this case, what was given emphasis is the distinction between an employee and the employer by outlining that an employee can be controlled by the master to a certain extent. It is prudent to note that the common-law element of control was the guidepost that was followed in this case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The dissenting opinion outlined that there is no inconsistency thing between coexistence of a company and an employment in terms of relationship. As employees perform their everyday work, the shareholders such as the four physicians act as employees with respect to the common-law (Murch, 2004) . This is because in the employee’s and employer’s role are well designed and embraced for various purposes under the state and federal law.
An employer/employee relationship is well-defined under the law, in this case being under ADA, rather than being based on the preference of the employer or the employee. This case played a crucial role in determining future and current relationship at the workplace. The decision of the court made it clear that what exists between the shareholders and employees, such as Wells, is professional relationship guided by the standards of conduct as required by the profession (Prettyman, 2003) . The decision also ensured shareholders to be liable for the services rendered with respect to claims such as misconduct, negligence, and contract termination. This case ensured that rules apply both to the employer and the employee in a bid to sustain current and future relationships at heart of the company and its employees.
Conclusion
In the Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 123 S. Ct. 1673 (2003) case, Deborah Wells filed a suit alleging a violation of the ADA Act of 1990 when her employment contract was terminated. On its defense, Clackamas argued that it was not covered by the ADA Act. The District Court decided that the employers were more of partners than shareholders and thus were not employees under the ADA Act. However, the Appeals Court did not find a reasoned permit from the professional corporation to contend they were in a partnership so as to evade allegation of discrimination on the employees. This case has also played an essential role in designing a relationship between the employer and the employee.
References
Murch, D. W. (2004). Civil Rights-Employment Practices: Common Law Control Is the Best Test of Employee within Employment Discrimination-Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, PC v. Wells. NDL Rev. , 80 , 471.
Prettyman, P. J. (2003). How to Discriminate Against Old Lawyers: The Status of Partners, Shareholders, and Members Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act with Addendum Discussing Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, PC v. Wells. Ind. L. Rev. , 37 , 545.
Turner, R. (2004). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the workplace: a study of the Supreme Court’s disabling choices and decisions. NYU Ann. Surv. Am. L. , 60 , 379.
