Brad began working at Lay-Z-Guy in 1981 as a customer service manager. In 1995 his employer started requiring him and other salespeople to sign a series of one-year agreements that stated they could be terminated on 60 days' notice. Three years later, it required Brad to incorporate, and from that point forward, the agreements were between Lay-Z-Guy and Brad's corporation. The agreements defined Brad, and later his corporation, as an "independent marketing consultant" and expressly stated that the relationship was not one of employment, but rather of an independent contractor-principal. Brad paid for his own office space and remitted his own income taxes and workers' compensation premiums. At the same time, Lay-Z-Guy set prices, territory, and promotional methods and Brad was limited to servicing Lay-Z-Guy exclusively. In 2003, Lay-Z-Guy terminated the agreement with 60 days' notice. Brad sued for wrongful dismissal damages, alleging that he was an employee. 1. What arguments could Brad make to support his position that he was an employee? 2. What arguments could Lay-Z-Guy make to support its position that Brad was an independent contractor? 3. Which side do you think would be successful