Discrimination Based on National Origin.  Phanna Xieng was sent by the Cambodian government to the United States in 1974 for "advanced military training."  When the Cambodian government fell in 1975, Xieng remained in the United States and in 1979 was employed by Peoples National Bank of Washington.  In performance appraisals from 1980 through 1985, Xieng was rated by his supervisors as "capable of dealing effectively with customers" and qualified for promotion, although in each appraisal it was noted that Xieng might improve his communication skills to maximize his possibilities for future advancement.  Xieng sought job promotions on numerous occasions but was never promoted.  In 1986, he filed a complaint against the bank, alleging employment discrimination based on national origin.  The employer argued that its refusal to promote Xieng because of his accent or communication skills did not amount to discrimination based on national origin.  Is it possible to separate discrimination based on an employee's accent and communication skills from discrimination based on national origin?  How should the court rule on this issue?  [Xieng v. Peoples National Bank of Washington, 120 Wash.2d 512, 844 P.2d 389 (1993)]

19-1.  Employee versus Independent Contractor.  Stephen Hemmerling was a driver for the Happy Cab Co. Hemmerling paid certain fixed expenses and abided by a variety of rules relating to the use of the cab, the hours that could be worked, the solicitation of fares, and so on. Rates were set by the state. Happy Cab did not withhold taxes from Hemmerling's pay. While driving a cab, Hemmerling was injured in an accident and filed a claim against Happy Cab in a Nebraska state court for workers' compensation benefits. Such benefits are not available to independent contractors. On what basis might the court hold that Hemmerling is an employee? Explain. [Hemmerling v. Happy Cab Co., 247 Neb. 919, 530 N.W.2d 916 (1995)]