Claudine Woolf was an independent business manager for Mary Kay Inc. in March 1997 when she learned she was pregnant with her first child. That same month, Woolf was diagnosed with cancer. Woolf eventually filed a lawsuit against Mary Kay Inc. under California statute, claiming that Mary Kay had ignored her disability. The jury rendered a judgment in Woolf`s favor and the court`s judgment repeated the jury`s verdict, except for the addition of punitive damages. In that court, Mary Kay argued that there is legally insufficient evidence to support the jury`s finding that Woolf was Mary Kay`s employee, the necessary threshold of liability under California statute. We legally conclude that Woolf was not Mary Kay`s employee. Accordingly, we set aside the court`s judgment.1 Despite the facts listed above, Woolf offered the court evidence that she felt controlled by Mary Kay; She testified that she felt that if she wanted to succeed, she had to follow the proposed business method. These testimonies do not prove Mary Kay`s right to control the details of Woolf`s work.
The recording shows that the proposals contained in Mary Kay`s reference manual for independent sales managers, or that were proposed at optional seminars or by other sales managers, were nothing more than recommendations that had been successful for other independent sellers. Woolf was free to accept them, modify them for their use, or reject them out of hand.8 Registration is clear that rejecting such proposals did not lead a seller to impose sanctions. Woolf also relies heavily on the fact that either party can terminate the contract for any reason with a period of thirty days. Woolf qualifies this order of employment after authorization. It argues that the parties cannot dismiss or be dismissed, as the parties to an employment relationship can, as this would amount to an infringement. Based on the facts of this case, we disagree. Our review of the agreement clarifies that the termination provision is only the agreement of the parties on how to terminate their contractual relationship. There can be no infringement if the mode of termination of the relationship is the mode provided for by its own contractual conditions. We reject Woolf`s argument that Mary Kay`s right to terminate the agreement is evidence that Woolf was an employee and not an independent contractor. See Cont`l Ins. Co. v.
Wolford, 526 S.W.2d 539, 541-42 (Tex.1975) (right to dismissal of workers without proof that the details of the work were subject to control by the contracting authority; The worker was a legally independent contractor). Mary Kay sold her cosmetics to Woolf for resale. Mary Kay ordered that cosmetics be sold to end consumers (i.e. not to retailers) and described the use of Mary Kay brands, but other than that, Woolf had wide discretion as to how it operated its business. They did not work specific hours; She could work as much or as little as she wanted. It could sell the cosmetics to any user or keep them for its own use. It could sell them in any geographical area of the country. It set its own prices for cosmetics, thus controlling the profits it derived from the sales aspect of its activities.
She was able (and made) to choose to hire more consultants and try to qualify as a director, or she could remain a beauty consultant with no monthly purchase requirement. As a manager, Woolf voluntarily accepted the obligation to fulfill monthly purchase obligations with his unit.