
Every first year law student learns about the International Shoe case, the 1945 decision of the United States Supreme Court establishing the “minimum contacts” standard for personal jurisdiction. I was reminded of this case recently because my wife has just started law school after many years of teaching, tutoring and political activity. What sparked my interest were the underlying facts of the dispute, which have a modern day equivalent in the debate over the employment status of workers in the gig economy. Let me explain. International Shoe Co. manufactured shoes (of course) and was headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It had manufacturing and distribution facilities in several states but not in the state of Washington. The company sold shoes in the state of Washington through the efforts of thirteen salesmen (they were all men) who resided in that state. It supplied the salesmen with sample shoes (one shoe per style only), which they displayed to prospective customers. The salesmen were reimbursed for certain expenses and were paid on commission. They could take orders but could not negotiate price or terms, all of which were controlled by International Shoe. The salesmen had no authority to enter into contracts or collect payment. The State of Washington contended that the salesmen were International Shoe's employees and assessed the company for unpaid contributions due to its unemployment compensation fund. The company challenged the assessment for two reasons. First, International Shoe argued that it wasn’t doing business in Washington, so it was not subject to the...