In the 1945 case Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving workers' compensation law. The plaintiff, Mr. Martino, was injured while working for Michigan Window Cleaning Company and sought to receive benefits under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, his employer argued that he should instead be compensated under state workers’ compensation laws which would result in lower payments than FELA would provide. The court held that because window cleaning did not involve interstate commerce - an essential requirement for FELA coverage - Mr. Martino could not claim benefits under this act and must seek redress through state provisions instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of "employee" under the Fair Labor Standards Act was too narrow and inconsistent with Congress' intent. He contended that window cleaners should be considered employees, not independent contractors, as they were integral to the company’s business operations and subject to its control in terms of hours, wages, and working conditions. By focusing on whether workers had a “substantial” investment in their work or an opportunity for profit or loss based on managerial skill, he believed that the majority overlooked other important factors such as dependence on a single employer for income and lack of bargaining power. This restrictive view could potentially exclude many workers from wage-and-hour protections intended by Congress when it passed FLSA.