By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

The issue of WWE classifying talent as independent contractors rather than employees came to the surface this week when a Yale Law professor said he does not believe it would hold up in court.

Professor Bob Solomon added that he believes the classification is "immoral" based on his belief that WWE treats its wrestlers like employees by controlling the nature and scope of their work.

"I believe there is a statutory scheme that protects employees, and that WWE has gone to great lengths to take itself out of that scheme, I think in a way that would not stand up in a court law," Solomon said. "And given the extent to which they have gone - not only death, but to classify people as independent contractors to get around the protections a regular employee has - is not only illegal, but I believe immoral."

Following Solomon's comments earlier this week, WWE spokesman Robert Zimmerman responded to the issue of independent contractor vs. employee in a statement to the Talking Points Memo publication.

The statement reads: "WWE talent are highly skilled professionals who only perform and promote their appearances; unlike employees, they do not have any corporate responsibilities or duties, and thus are independent contractors. As independent contractors, WWE talent are able to negotiate all aspects of their contracts including length of agreement, compensation, time off, disability provisions and other benefits that would not be afforded to an employee."

Caldwell's Analysis: This is one of the few times WWE has specifically addressed the classification of its talent, and it's evident through this statement that WWE has a limited and myopic view of what an independent contractor is. Let's break this down piece by piece.

(1) WWE talent are highly skilled professionals who only perform and promote their appearances. Unlike employees, they do not have any corporate responsibilities or duties, and thus are independent contractors. This is the definition of a non sequitur. Having no corporate responsibilities or duties has absolutely nothing to do with being an independent contractor.

Even if we follow through on WWE's attempt at logic here, one of the best examples of WWE talent having "corporate responsibility" is being required to adhere to a strict dress code. If talent are truly independent contractors, they should be able to show up to work in flip-flops and shorts, as long as they're able to perform the duties assigned to them by the company. But, because WWE wants talent to uphold a professional corporate image, they are told how they should dress, even outside of the work environment. That goes against the spirit and law of being classified as an independent contractor.

(2) As independent contractors, WWE talent are able to negotiate all aspects of their contracts including length of agreement, compensation, time off, disability provisions and other benefits that would not be afforded to an employee. This is the real kicker. WWE is essentially arguing that employees cannot negotiate contracts, time off, or other health benefits. That's another absurd statement when all aspects identified here can be negotiated in a standard employee-employer relationship. Employees in a variety of industries can negotiate vacation time, health benefits, and the length of their contract.

It's as if WWE operates with the mindset that talent should think they are lucky enough to be in WWE, so they should take whatever WWE offers them in good faith, say "thank you," and allow WWE to dictate the nature of their work as independent contractors. In such a high-risk profession where wrestlers are "highly skilled professionals" - using WWE's own wording - the very least the talent should be afforded is the opportunity to negotiate the best potential deal, and being an employee or independent contractor has nothing to do with it.

The other aspect of this is what Zimmerman does not address, which includes WWE talent not allowed to take their "highly skilled professional" skills to another promotion willing to pay them for their services. WWE also has a provision in talent contracts where a wrestler cannot appear on another promotion's TV or PPV show for 90 days following their WWE release. This has been one of my biggest beefs with the independent contractor classification, as WWE is essentially still controlling where and when the "independent contractor" can work after he's been "released" by the company.

In summary, this is a poor attempt to explain WWE's position on the independent contractor vs. employee classification. Their argument is flawed, limited in view, and does not take into account so many inherent aspects of being labeled an independent contractor that WWE does not allow their talent to enjoy the freedom of.

We suggest these recent related articles...

WWE NEWS: Superstars SPOILERS - Results from Chicago Raw

WWE NETWORK: Monday, Oct. 12 Schedule - Raw pre-show, Sting DVD preview

WWE NEWS: Lana & Rusev reportedly engaged - follow the interesting 2015 timeline