A recent Minnesota case discussed the issue of whether certain persons, claimed to be independent contractors, were employees for purposes of paying unemployment taxes. The employer, St. Croix Sensory, Inc., contracted with certain persons to perform odor testing of materials, products and air normally in its facility due to the use of a heavy machine in testing. Although Minnesota regulations include numerous factors, the Court decided that there are a minimum of five factors used to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. However, the two most important ones are (1) the right, or the lack of the right, to control the means and manner of performance, and (2) the right, or the lack of the right, to discharge the worker without incurring liability. In regard to the method of performance, the Court noted that Minnesota rules include additional criteria. In regard to control of performance, the contract retained in St. Croix Sensory the ability to stop work or prescribe alterations of the work, if it did not conform to requirements. In actuality, however, there was really very limited exercise of these rights, and the fact that the contract allowed them to control the sensory workers was not determinative, particularly because some of the parameters set appeared to come directly from individual clients or was dictated by industry regulations. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the sensors had a significant degree of independence in determining the means and manner of their own performance, and primarily controlled how they performed a job. In regard to discharge without liability, it was indicated that while control may be indicated by the fact that these sensors can be fired with little notice, or even during a test session for failing to follow the test session rules. However, the person would be paid for any sessions started, and indeed are paid when a session is cancelled after they have elected to participate in such session. St. Croix Sensory, Inc. v. Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. Ap. 2010)