Independent Contractor Classification by State

A 1099 form does not decide worker status, and one misclassified worker can create federal tax, federal wage, state unemployment, state wage-payment, and insurance liability at the same time.

There is no single test that controls. The U.S. Department of Labor uses an economic-realities analysis for FLSA wage-and-hour coverage. The IRS uses a common-law right-to-control test for federal employment tax. Many states use some form of the ABC test for unemployment insurance, and the strictest general wage/payment states — California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — use ABC much more broadly.

The same worker can pass the IRS test and fail California's ABC test on the same day. The employer carries the burden under every state ABC formulation; failing any single prong — A, B, or C — means employee status under that test no matter what the contract says.

This research walks the federal framework, the ABC family, the named cases that built modern doctrine, and the state-by-state landscape, anchored throughout to statute text, court records, and agency guidance.

Skip to the state-by-state table →

Quick reference

• Federal FLSA test: Economic-realities, six factors, totality of the circumstances. Codified at 29 CFR §§795.100-795.115 (89 Fed. Reg. 1638, Jan. 10, 2024).
• Federal employment-tax test: IRS common-law right-to-control (Treas. Reg. §31.3121(d)-1(c); IRS Pub. 15-A). Worker or firm may request a binding determination via Form SS-8.
• NLRA test: NLRB common-law right-to-control, per The Atlanta Opera, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 95 (2023), restoring the multifactor framework after the 2019 SuperShuttle formulation.
• Broad ABC for wage/payment claims: California (Cal. Lab. Code §2775), Massachusetts (M.G.L. c. 149 §148B), New Jersey (per Hargrove v. Sleepy's, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), with N.J.A.C. 12:11 operative Oct. 1, 2026).
• Anchor cases: Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018); Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014); Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021); East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 251 N.J. 477 (2022); Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024).
• Stacked penalties on misclassification: federal income-tax withholding (IRC §3509), FICA, FUTA, state UI back assessments, state wage-payment treble damages (MA), state stop-work orders (NJ), state PAGA exposure (CA), private FLSA collective actions (29 USC §216(b)).
• Current rule posture (as of May 2026): The 2024 DOL Final Rule remains the operative CFR text unless and until rescinded. The Department announced in May 2025 it would not apply the rule in current enforcement and would rely on Fact Sheet #13; on Feb. 26, 2026, it announced a proposed rescission at 91 Fed. Reg. 9932, with comments due Apr. 28, 2026.

The 5 Most Expensive Misclassification Mistakes

1. Trusting the IRS-passing classification to control state ABC analysis. A worker can satisfy the IRS common-law right-to-control test and still fail California's Cal. Lab. Code §2775 ABC test. The Cal. Supreme Court adopted ABC for wage-order claims in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the legislature codified the holding in AB 5 (2019). The state-level reassessment is typically larger than the federal one — state UI back contributions, derivative wage-and-hour exposure, PAGA representative-action penalties, and plaintiff-bar collective actions all attach simultaneously. The FedEx Ground misclassification settlement of $228 million covered approximately 2,300 California drivers across reimbursement, overtime, missed meal and rest periods, and termination pay (Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014); settlement approved 2016, N.D. Cal. No. 3:05-md-1700).

2. Failing the B prong on a single contract. Under any standard ABC formulation, the worker must perform work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business." A delivery company contracting drivers, a cleaning company contracting cleaners, or a tutoring company contracting tutors fails B on the face of the contract — no factual record about scheduling or control matters once B fails. The New Jersey Supreme Court reinforced employer burden under B and C in East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 251 N.J. 477 (2022), holding that drywall subcontractors were employees notwithstanding LLC registrations because the hiring entity did not establish independent business existence.

3. Treating the written independent-contractor agreement as dispositive. Every multifactor test (federal economic-realities, IRS common-law, state Borello, NLRB common-law) treats the contract as one factor among many. Actual practice controls. Long-tenured "contractors" with daily direction, set hours, exclusive engagement, employer-provided tools, and integrated job functions get reclassified regardless of contractual language. The 2024 DOL Final Rule at 29 CFR §795.110(b)(4) explicitly lists "control exercised through legal compliance obligations" and "scheduling control" as control indicators that override paperwork.

4. Extrapolating California's Prop 22 outside California. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7448 et seq. (Prop 22, approved by voters Nov. 3, 2020) exempts app-based ride-share and delivery drivers from AB 5's ABC test in California only. The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 22 as constitutional in Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024). Other ABC-test states (Massachusetts, New Jersey) apply their own ABC tests to gig workers; Massachusetts settled the most-recent Uber/Lyft enforcement action for $175 million plus prospective compliance commitments (settlement announced June 27, 2024, AG Campbell).

5. Missing the state UI, PFML, and sick-leave contribution layer. Misclassification creates back contributions to state unemployment insurance, state paid family and medical leave funds in PFML states, state disability insurance, and accrued sick leave under state mandates. Each carries its own penalty multiplier. New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act extends to misclassification, with stop-work orders authorized under N.J.S.A. 34:1A-1.16 (effective Jan. 1, 2020), and the state's Unemployment Compensation Law permits per-employee penalties on top of back contributions. See paid family and medical leave laws by state for the contribution-back-assessment mechanic and paid sick leave laws by state for the accrual exposure.

The federal floor

FLSA — 29 CFR §§795.100-795.115 (the 2024 Final Rule)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division applies the economic-realities test to determine whether a worker is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §203(e), (g). The Department's Final Rule on Employee or Independent Contractor Classification, 89 Fed. Reg. 1638 (Jan. 10, 2024), effective March 11, 2024, codified the test at 29 CFR §§795.100-795.115.

The rule lists six factors, evaluated as a totality with no factor pre-weighted:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(1). The inquiry centers on the worker's exercise of business judgment — pricing, advertising, equipment choice, scope of work — that meaningfully affects economic outcomes.
2. Investments by the worker and the potential employer. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(2). Capital and entrepreneurial investments rather than tools or cost-of-doing-the-job expenses.
3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(3). Indefinite or continuous work weighs toward employee status; project-based or sporadic engagement weighs toward independent contractor.
4. Nature and degree of control. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(4). Includes scheduling, supervision, price-setting, ability to work for others, and control exercised through compliance obligations.
5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer's business. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(5). Work central to the principal business weighs toward employee status.
6. Skill and initiative. 29 CFR §795.110(b)(6). Specialized skill applied in a business-like manner weighs toward independent contractor; specialized skill applied with the hiring entity's direction does not.

The ultimate inquiry, under 29 CFR §795.105(b), is whether the worker is "as a matter of economic reality, in business for themself" or "economically dependent on the potential employer for work." The Final Rule rescinded the 2021 rule (86 Fed. Reg. 1168 (Jan. 7, 2021)) that had elevated control and opportunity for profit as "core factors."

Current enforcement posture. The 2024 Final Rule remains the operative regulation under 29 CFR Part 795 unless and until it is rescinded. On May 1, 2025, the Department announced it would no longer apply the 2024 rule in current enforcement and would rely on Fact Sheet #13 and Opinion Letter FLSA 2019-6. On February 26, 2026, DOL announced a proposed rescission at 91 Fed. Reg. 9932, with comments due April 28, 2026. That creates a dual track: agency enforcement uses the older guidance while private FLSA plaintiffs may still cite the operative CFR text.

Source: Final Rule at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/10/2024-00067/employee-or-independent-contractor-classification-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act; Fact Sheet #13 at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/13-flsa-employment-relationship.

IRS — Common-law right-to-control (federal employment tax)

The Internal Revenue Service applies a common-law right-to-control test for federal employment-tax purposes — FICA (IRC §§3101, 3111), FUTA (IRC §3301), and income-tax withholding (IRC §3402). The authoritative regulations are Treas. Reg. §§31.3121(d)-1, 31.3306(i)-1, and 31.3401(c)-1; the administrative guidance is IRS Publication 15-A (Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide) and IRS Topic No. 762.

The IRS organizes the inquiry into three categories of evidence:

1. Behavioral control. Whether the firm has the right to direct what is done and how — instructions, training, evaluation systems.
2. Financial control. Whether the firm directs the financial and business aspects — unreimbursed expenses, opportunity for profit or loss, services available to the market, method of payment, significant investment.
3. Relationship of the parties. Written contracts, employee-type benefits, permanency, services part of the regular business of the company.

A worker or firm may file Form SS-8 (Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding) to request an IRS determination. The result binds the IRS for federal employment-tax purposes; it does not bind state agencies or affect state-law classification.

Section 530 safe harbor. Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-600, 92 Stat. 2885 (codified as an uncodified note to IRC §3401), provides relief from federal employment-tax reclassification when the employer (a) had a reasonable basis for the contractor treatment (prior IRS audit, judicial precedent, long-standing industry practice, or written legal advice), (b) consistently treated similar workers as contractors, and (c) filed all required Forms 1099 for the workers. The relief is purely federal — it does not block state-law reclassification.

Section 3509 reduced rates. IRC §3509 reduces federal employment-tax liability when reclassification is not the result of willful or intentional disregard and the employer filed required information returns. The reduced rates are 1.5% of wages for income-tax withholding and 20% of the employee's FICA share when Forms 1099 were filed; the rates double (3% and 40%) when Forms 1099 were not filed. Willful misclassification removes Section 3509 entirely and triggers full liability under IRC §§3402, 3101, and 3111, plus penalties under IRC §6651.

Source: Treas. Reg. §31.3121(d)-1 at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3121(d)-1; IRS Topic 762 at https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762; IRC §3509 at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3509; Section 530 text at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/section-530-relief-requirements.

NLRA — NLRB common-law right-to-control

The National Labor Relations Board applies its own common-law right-to-control test for whether a worker is an "employee" under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC §152(3). The Board restored the longstanding multifactor common-law framework in The Atlanta Opera, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 95 (June 13, 2023), overruling the 2019 SuperShuttle DFW formulation that had elevated "entrepreneurial opportunity" as a single dispositive factor. The result is the test from NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254 (1968), with no factor weighted above the others.

The NLRB test matters for collective-bargaining rights, protected concerted activity, and ULP exposure. It is distinct from the FLSA economic-realities test and from the IRS common-law test, even though all three sit in the "control" family.

Source: The Atlanta Opera, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 95 (2023), https://www.nlrb.gov/case/01-RC-276292.

The ABC test — family overview

The ABC test originated in state unemployment-insurance statutes. The standard formulation: a worker is presumed an employee unless the hiring entity proves all three prongs:

• A. The worker is free from control and direction in the performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact.
• B. The work performed is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.
• C. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

Failure on any one prong means employee status. The hiring entity carries the burden of proof on each prong.

Why B is the structural trap

The A prong asks about control — a factual record can sometimes establish freedom from direction. The C prong asks about the worker's independent business — proven by other clients, separate business name, business license, marketing.

The B prong asks whether the work is outside the usual course of the principal's business. This is a question of business definition, not factual record. A delivery company contracting drivers fails B as a matter of categorization; no amount of contract drafting or factual development cures the fail. The Cal. Supreme Court in Dynamex described B as the inquiry that distinguishes "true independent contractors" from workers a business "has chosen to treat as something other than employees." The most-litigated misclassification disputes turn on B.

California — the strictest application

California adopted the ABC test for Wage Order claims in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) (Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.), and the legislature codified the holding by AB 5 (2019), effective January 1, 2020, at Cal. Lab. Code §§2775-2787. The state Supreme Court held in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021) (after the Ninth Circuit's certification, 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021)), that Dynamex applies retroactively to all open Wage Order cases.

Cal. Lab. Code §2775 — the statutory ABC test

Cal. Lab. Code §2775(b)(1) imposes the ABC test on all California Wage Order, Labor Code, and Unemployment Insurance Code provisions, except where another standard is statutorily specified or where one of the §§2776-2787 exemptions applies. The text reads, in part: "a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed."

AB 5 exemptions — the Borello reversion

When a §§2776-2787 exemption applies, classification reverts to the Borello multifactor test from S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989). Borello is a control-plus-secondary-factors analysis (11 factors total), more contractor-permissive than ABC. The principal exemption categories are:

• Professional and licensed occupations (Cal. Lab. Code §2783): physicians, dentists, psychologists, veterinarians, lawyers, architects, engineers, private investigators, accountants, registered securities broker-dealers, real estate licensees, and a long list of licensed specialty trades. Subject to the listed conditions for each category.
• Professional services (Cal. Lab. Code §2778): marketing, human resources administration, travel agents, graphic designers, grant writers, fine artists, IRS-enrolled agents, payment-processing agents, photographers and photojournalists, freelance writers and editors, content contributors, and others — provided the worker maintains a separate business location, has the ability to set or negotiate rates, is free to accept or reject work, customarily exercises discretion and independent judgment, and meets the six listed criteria.
• Business-to-business (Cal. Lab. Code §2776): a bona fide business-to-business contracting relationship between two business entities satisfying 12 enumerated criteria — separate business location, written contract, freedom from control, customary independent business engagement, ability to contract with other businesses, advertising as available to the public, provision of own tools, ability to negotiate rate, business license, no work performed for the principal's customers under the principal's name.
• Referral agency (Cal. Lab. Code §2777): qualifying referral relationships between a service provider and a referral agency, subject to 10 enumerated conditions.
• Construction industry (Cal. Lab. Code §2781): bona fide subcontractor relationships under Bus. & Prof. Code §7000 et seq. licensing requirements, with specified additional factors.

Even within an exemption, Borello's control prong remains operative. The exemption permits the hiring entity to attempt classification under Borello; it does not guarantee independent-contractor status.

Proposition 22 — app-based drivers

Proposition 22, approved by voters November 3, 2020, codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7448 et seq., exempts app-based ride-share and delivery drivers from the ABC test and Cal. Lab. Code §2775. The initiative requires the network company to provide statutory benefits (earnings floor at 120% of minimum wage for engaged time, healthcare subsidy, occupational accident insurance) but classifies drivers as independent contractors for state-law purposes.

The Cal. Supreme Court upheld Prop 22 as constitutional in Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024) (filed July 25, 2024), unanimously reversing the Court of Appeal's partial-invalidation holding. The court ruled that the initiative did not unconstitutionally encroach on the legislature's workers'-compensation authority because the statutory provisions for Prop 22 drivers occupy a separate domain.

Prop 22 applies in California only. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and other ABC-test states have not adopted parallel carve-outs for gig drivers.

Things employers consistently miss in California

• The contract is one factor only. Even outside the ABC test, Borello and the 2024 federal economic-realities test both treat the written agreement as one factor among many. Practice controls.
• B fails on the face of the business definition. A trucking company contracting drivers, a cleaning company contracting cleaners, a delivery company contracting couriers — each fails B before any factual record develops.
• Prop 22 is jurisdiction-specific. A California app-based driver who travels into a different state for an extended assignment may be evaluated under that state's classification regime.
• Bus.-to-bus. exemption demands all 12 criteria. The Cal. Lab. Code §2776 exemption fails on any single missing criterion. A "separate business location" requirement in particular trips up service providers operating from the principal's facility.
• PAGA representative-action exposure stacks on top. Misclassification triggers Labor Code violations (§§203, 226, 1194, 226.7), and PAGA (Cal. Lab. Code §§2698-2699) permits aggrieved-employee representative actions for civil penalties on top of restitution.

State-by-state table

Each row gives the state's primary classification test for unemployment-insurance purposes and notes whether ABC extends to wage-payment claims.

State	Test	Notable	Citation
Alabama	Common-law right-to-control	Federal IRS-style test for state UI	Ala. Code §25-4-7
Alaska	ABC (UI)	All three prongs required	Alaska Stat. §23.20.525(a)(8)
Arizona	Common-law right-to-control	UI uses ABC-adjacent factors	A.R.S. §23-902, §23-617
Arkansas	ABC (UI)	"And" formulation, all prongs	Ark. Code §11-10-210(e)
California	ABC (Wage Orders + UI + most Lab. Code)	Full ABC, Dynamex + AB 5	Cal. Lab. Code §2775; Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §621
Colorado	ABC (UI)	Modified ABC, "to the satisfaction of the division"	Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-70-115
Connecticut	ABC (UI)	All three prongs; Latimer controlling	Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii)
Delaware	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	19 Del. C. §3302(10)(K)
Florida	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	Fla. Stat. §443.1216(1)(d)
Georgia	ABC-modified (UI)	"A" and "B or C" — disjunctive	O.C.G.A. §34-8-35(f)
Hawaii	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	Haw. Rev. Stat. §383-2(a)
Idaho	ABC-modified (UI)	"A" and "B or C"	Idaho Code §72-1316
Illinois	ABC (UI; construction industry separate)	UI Act §212; Employee Classification Act for construction	820 ILCS 405/212; 820 ILCS 185
Indiana	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	Ind. Code §22-4-8-1(b)
Iowa	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	Iowa Code §96.19(18)
Kansas	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	K.S.A. §44-703(i)(3)(D)
Kentucky	Common-law (UI)	Multifactor	KRS §341.055
Louisiana	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	La. R.S. §23:1472(12)(E)
Maine	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	26 M.R.S. §1043(11)(E)
Maryland	ABC (UI; construction + landscaping separate)	Workplace Fraud Act ABC for construction/landscape	Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §8-205; §3-901 et seq.
Massachusetts	ABC (Wage Act + UI)	Strict ABC for wage payment per §148B	M.G.L. c. 149 §148B; c. 151A §2
Michigan	Common-law (UI; 20-factor)	IRS-style 20-factor	M.C.L. §421.42(5)-(6)
Minnesota	ABC-modified (UI; construction separate)	UI uses multifactor; construction ABC	Minn. Stat. §181.723; §268.035
Mississippi	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	Miss. Code §71-5-11
Missouri	Common-law (UI; IRS 20-factor)	IRS-style	Mo. Rev. Stat. §288.034(5)
Montana	Independent-contractor exemption certificate required	Mont. Code §39-71-401; ICEC system	Mont. Code §39-51-201(15)
Nebraska	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	Neb. Rev. Stat. §48-604(5)
Nevada	ABC (UI)	All three prongs; conclusive-presumption statute	Nev. Rev. Stat. §612.085; §608.0155
New Hampshire	ABC-modified (UI)	All three prongs	N.H. Rev. Stat. §282-A:9(III)
New Jersey	ABC (UI + Wage Payment + Wage and Hour)	All three prongs; Hargrove extended ABC to wage payment	N.J.S.A. §43:21-19(i)(6)(A)-(C)
New Mexico	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	N.M.S.A. §51-1-42(F)(5)
New York	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor; Vega for app-based	N.Y. Lab. Law §511; N.Y. Tax Law §671
North Carolina	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	N.C. Gen. Stat. §96-1(b)(13)(c)
North Dakota	Common-law (UI; 20-factor)	IRS-style	N.D.C.C. §52-01-01(17)
Ohio	ABC-modified (UI)	All three prongs	Ohio Rev. Code §4141.01(B)(2)(k)
Oklahoma	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	Okla. Stat. tit. 40 §1-210(14)
Oregon	ABC-equivalent (UI; combined-statute multifactor)	"Independently established business" required	ORS §670.600
Pennsylvania	ABC (UI; common-law for wage)	UI ABC; wage payment uses different test	43 P.S. §753(l)(2)(B)
Rhode Island	ABC (UI)	All three prongs; oldest ABC statute	R.I. Gen. Laws §28-42-3(25)
South Carolina	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	S.C. Code §41-35-10
South Dakota	Common-law (UI)	IRS-style	SDCL §61-1-11
Tennessee	ABC-modified (UI; 20-factor for construction)	UI multifactor; construction adopts ABC-like test	Tenn. Code §50-7-207; §50-6-901
Texas	Common-law right-to-control	20-factor test for UI	Tex. Labor Code §201.041
Utah	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	Utah Code §35A-4-204(3)
Vermont	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	21 V.S.A. §1301(6)(B)
Virginia	Common-law (with §40.1-28.7:7 worker-classification statute)	2020 statute permits presumption-of-employee claims	Va. Code §40.1-28.7:7; §60.2-212
Washington	ABC (UI; construction separate)	All three prongs for UI; Industrial Insurance Act for construction	RCW §50.04.140; §51.08.180
West Virginia	ABC (UI)	All three prongs	W. Va. Code §21A-1A-16
Wisconsin	Common-law (UI; 9-factor)	Multifactor	Wis. Stat. §108.02(12)(bm)
Wyoming	Common-law right-to-control	Multifactor for UI	Wyo. Stat. §27-3-104(b)
District of Columbia	Common-law (UI)	Multifactor	D.C. Code §51-101(2)(D)

Notes on the table:

• The "ABC-modified" label captures variations where one or more prongs is softened (e.g., "A" plus "B or C" disjunctive in Georgia and Idaho) or where the controlling statute incorporates ABC language with additional factors.
• A handful of states use different tests for different statutory contexts. Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Maryland are the cleanest examples — ABC for unemployment insurance, but separate (often stricter) tests for construction or wage payment.
• Massachusetts and New Jersey are the only states besides California that extend ABC to general wage-payment claims. Other ABC-test states limit ABC to unemployment insurance and apply common-law or right-to-control tests for wage and hour.

Massachusetts — the second-strictest application

Massachusetts adopted its independent-contractor statute, M.G.L. c. 149 §148B, in 2004 as part of an omnibus wage-and-hour reform. The statute imposes ABC on all wage-and-hour determinations under M.G.L. c. 149 (wage payment, prevailing wage, minimum wage and overtime).

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted §148B in a sequence of decisions:

• Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 454 Mass. 582 (2009) — established the §148B remedy as derivative of underlying wage-and-hour violations; a §148B violation is not a standalone tort.
• Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of Div. of Emp. & Training, 439 Mass. 171 (2003) — interpreted the predecessor unemployment statute, applied to news carriers; pre-dates §148B but informs the same-language UI statute at M.G.L. c. 151A §2.
• Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321 (2015) — applied §148B to taxicab industry; held that lease arrangements did not necessarily satisfy prong B.
• Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, 488 Mass. 691 (2021) — held the §148B test does not apply to a "joint employer" inquiry that asks whether an entity other than the direct hirer is also an employer; the §148B ABC test is the wrong vehicle for that question.

Misclassification under c. 149 §148B feeds into the Wage Act (c. 149 §150), which mandates treble damages plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. A misclassified worker recovers three times unpaid wages — overtime, meal-break premiums, vacation pay-out at separation — on prevailing.

Source: M.G.L. c. 149 §148B at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section148B; c. 149 §150 (treble damages) at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section150.

New Jersey — the broadest ABC reach

New Jersey's Unemployment Compensation Law has applied an ABC test since 1936 (N.J.S.A. §43:21-19(i)(6)). The New Jersey Supreme Court extended ABC from unemployment to wage-payment claims in Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), holding that the same statutory ABC formulation governs New Jersey Wage Payment Law (N.J.S.A. §34:11-4.1 et seq.) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (N.J.S.A. §34:11-56a et seq.) determinations.

The state Supreme Court reinforced employer burden on prongs A and C in East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 251 N.J. 477 (2022). The court held unanimously that drywall installers operating as LLCs were employees because the hiring entity failed to demonstrate they were "customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business." The court explained that LLC registration alone does not establish prong C; the inquiry asks whether the worker would survive economically if the principal's engagement ended.

The state's enforcement infrastructure makes New Jersey the most aggressive ABC jurisdiction:

• Stop-work orders authorized under N.J.S.A. §34:1A-1.16 (Misclassification Stop-Work Order Act, effective Jan. 1, 2020). The Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development can order an entire worksite shut down for misclassification.
• Liquidated damages up to 200% of unpaid wages under N.J.S.A. §34:11-4.10(a).
• Personal liability for owners, officers, and managers under N.J.S.A. §34:11-4.10(c) for willful misclassification.
• Criminal exposure under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act when misclassification supports an inflated workers'-compensation rate filing.

Source: N.J.S.A. §43:21-19(i)(6) at https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-43/section-43-21-19/; Hargrove v. Sleepy's at https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2015/a-70-12.html; East Bay Drywall at https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2022/a-7-21.html.

Named-case anchors

Federal

• Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014). Ninth Circuit (Trott, J.) held that approximately 2,300 FedEx Ground drivers in California were misclassified as independent contractors under California's right-to-control test (the controlling test pre-Dynamex). The court emphasized that FedEx's Operating Agreement and Standard Operating Procedures gave it the right to control "the manner and means by which drivers performed work" — uniforms, vehicle specifications, scanner technology, route planning, delivery windows. Procedural posture: appellate reversal of district court summary judgment for FedEx; on remand, the parties settled for $228 million (settlement approved 2016, N.D. Cal. No. 3:05-md-1700-EMC). Source: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-17458/12-17458-2014-08-27.pdf.

• Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 939 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2019) (panel opinion), certified question answered, Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021), on remand, Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court whether Dynamex applied retroactively; the California Supreme Court answered yes; the Ninth Circuit then held the ABC test applies to all pending and future Wage Order claims regardless of whether the underlying contract pre-dated Dynamex. The case eliminated any "transition period" defense for hiring entities that misclassified workers under pre-Dynamex law.

• FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009). D.C. Circuit (Brown, J.) reversed an NLRB unfair-labor-practice finding, holding that FedEx Home Delivery drivers were independent contractors under the NLRA common-law test, with "entrepreneurial opportunity" as a heavily weighted factor. The case undergirded the Board's 2019 SuperShuttle DFW formulation, both since overruled by The Atlanta Opera (2023).

• NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254 (1968). Supreme Court established that the common-law agency test governs NLRA "employee" determinations — the foundation the NLRB returned to in The Atlanta Opera.

California

• S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989). California Supreme Court adopted the 11-factor multifactor classification test that bears the case name. Borello remains operative for AB 5-exempt occupations and for workers'-compensation determinations under Cal. Lab. Code §3357.

• Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). California Supreme Court (Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.) adopted the ABC test for Wage Order claims. The court held that the ABC formulation "promotes both certainty in classification and fairness in administration of the wage and hour laws." Procedural posture: review on a class certification dispute; the court answered the merits classification question to provide the standard. Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34743.

• Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024). California Supreme Court (Liu, J., for a unanimous court) upheld Proposition 22 against constitutional challenge. The court rejected arguments that Prop 22 unconstitutionally limited the legislature's authority over workers' compensation, holding that the initiative's classification provisions are within the people's reserved legislative power. Procedural posture: appellate review reversing the Court of Appeal's partial-invalidation holding. Filed July 25, 2024. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2024/s279622.html.

New Jersey

• Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor, 125 N.J. 567 (1991). New Jersey Supreme Court foundational application of ABC under N.J.S.A. §43:21-19(i)(6); affirmed liability for unemployment back contributions.

• Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015). New Jersey Supreme Court extended ABC from unemployment to wage payment under N.J.S.A. §34:11-4.1. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2015/a-70-12.html.

• East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 251 N.J. 477 (2022). New Jersey Supreme Court unanimous opinion (Solomon, J.) reinforcing employer burden on prongs A and C. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2022/a-7-21.html.

Massachusetts

• Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, 488 Mass. 691 (2021). Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that c. 149 §148B does not apply to joint-employer inquiries; the ABC test is the wrong vehicle to ask whether a non-hiring entity is also a statutory employer.

• Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321 (2015). Massachusetts SJC applied §148B to taxicab industry, rejecting the argument that lease arrangements per se satisfied prong B.

Connecticut

• Latimer v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 216 Conn. 237 (1990). Connecticut Supreme Court foundational ABC application under Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii). Established that the hiring entity must show evidence as to each prong.

New York

• Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.), 35 N.Y.3d 131 (2020). New York Court of Appeals held that delivery couriers for Postmates were employees for unemployment insurance purposes, applying a common-law right-to-control analysis. The court emphasized that Postmates' control over how couriers received assignments, delivery time windows, pricing, and customer interactions established the employment relationship despite contractor-style payment and tax treatment.

• Matter of Yoga Vida NYC, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor), 28 N.Y.3d 1013 (2016). New York Court of Appeals held that yoga instructors at a studio that did not require them to teach a set schedule and allowed them to teach at other studios were independent contractors. The case sets the comparator for the right-to-control test in New York's unemployment context.

Industry-specific rules

Trucking and motor carriers

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), 49 USC §14501(c), preempts state laws that "relate to a price, route, or service" of a motor carrier. The Ninth Circuit held in California Trucking Association v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021), that FAAAA does NOT preempt California's AB 5 as applied to motor carriers because AB 5 is a generally applicable labor law, not a regulation of routes or services. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in California Trucking Association v. Bonta, 142 S. Ct. 2902 (2022) (mem.), leaving AB 5 in effect for California-based trucking operations.

The First Circuit reached a similar non-preemption conclusion in Massachusetts Delivery Association v. Healey, 821 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 2016), as applied to M.G.L. c. 149 §148B.

Construction

Construction is the most-segregated industry under state classification law. Illinois (820 ILCS 185, the Employee Classification Act), Maryland (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §3-901 et seq., the Workplace Fraud Act), and Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §181.723) all have construction-specific statutes that apply ABC or ABC-equivalent tests for the construction industry regardless of whether the general state classification test is otherwise common-law.

The construction-specific statutes generally:

• Impose a presumption of employee status.
• Place the burden on the contractor to establish independent-contractor status under specific enumerated criteria.
• Authorize civil penalties per worker per violation, with daily multipliers.

Healthcare

Healthcare staffing relationships — locum tenens physicians, traveling nurses, agency-supplied therapists — are evaluated under each state's general classification regime. California carved out a narrow Cal. Lab. Code §2783(b)(1) exemption for licensed physicians and surgeons; the exemption requires the physician to maintain control of medical judgment, but is otherwise unconditioned on the ABC factors.

Agriculture

H-2A agricultural workers under 8 USC §1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) are employees of the H-2A petitioner; the federal worker-classification analysis does not apply to lawful H-2A engagements. Domestic agricultural workers in non-H-2A contexts are evaluated under the FLSA economic-realities test and the applicable state classification regime. The DOL has issued specific economic-realities guidance for agriculture in Fact Sheet #12.

Multi-state and remote workers

Classification follows the state where the work is performed for state-law purposes; the employer's federal classification obligations attach regardless of where the worker is located.

Three scenarios:

1. A Texas employer with a remote worker in California. California's AB 5 / Cal. Lab. Code §2775 ABC test applies to the California-based worker for California Wage Order, Labor Code, and Unemployment Insurance Code claims. The Texas employer must satisfy A, B, and C — or qualify under a §§2776-2787 exemption — to treat the worker as an independent contractor under California law. The Texas employer remains subject to federal IRS and FLSA classification rules for the same worker simultaneously.

2. A California employer with a remote worker in Texas. Texas's common-law right-to-control test under Tex. Labor Code §201.041 applies for Texas state-law UI determinations. California's ABC test does not extend extraterritorially to a Texas-located worker. The California employer's federal obligations (FLSA, IRS) attach to the Texas worker under federal economic-realities and common-law analysis, respectively.

3. A worker living in one state and routinely working in two. State-law classification typically follows the worker's "localization" of work, the same standard used for unemployment-insurance jurisdiction. When work is genuinely split between two states, both states' classification regimes can attach — the worker is an "employee" for purposes of work performed in California and an "independent contractor" for the same engagement when work is performed in Texas, with the corresponding contribution and reporting obligations to each.

ERISA preemption. ERISA preempts state classification laws only when classification determines benefit eligibility under an ERISA plan. ERISA does not preempt state wage-and-hour or unemployment classification rules. See Travelers Insurance Co. v. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans, 514 U.S. 645 (1995).

Recent changes (last 18 months)

• January 10, 2024 — DOL Final Rule published. 89 Fed. Reg. 1638. Effective March 11, 2024. Codified six-factor economic-realities test at 29 CFR §§795.100-795.115. Rescinded the 2021 rule.
• July 25, 2024 — Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024). California Supreme Court unanimously upheld Prop 22 as constitutional.
• June 27, 2024 — Massachusetts Uber/Lyft settlement. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a $175 million settlement with Uber and Lyft resolving misclassification claims under M.G.L. c. 149 §148B; settlement included earnings floor, paid sick time, and ancillary benefits for drivers.
• November 5, 2024 — Massachusetts Question 3. Massachusetts voters defeated Question 3, which would have permitted app-based drivers to collectively bargain without changing their independent-contractor status.
• May 1, 2025 — DOL non-enforcement announcement. Department of Labor announced it would no longer apply the 2024 Final Rule in current enforcement pending further rulemaking; reinstated Fact Sheet #13 and Opinion Letter FLSA 2019-6 for FLSA enforcement guidance. The Final Rule remains operative CFR text unless rescinded.
• 2025 — Multiple states with pending classification legislation. New York's Industrial Commissioner has issued enforcement guidance applying Matter of Vega to app-based delivery; New Jersey continues to issue stop-work orders under the 2020 Misclassification Stop-Work Order Act.
• February 26, 2026 — DOL announces proposed rescission. The proposed rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 9932 would rescind the 2024 independent-contractor rule; comments were due April 28, 2026. The 2024 rule remains operative during the rulemaking.

FAQ

How does the federal economic-realities test differ from California's ABC test?

The federal economic-realities test is a totality-of-circumstances analysis under six factors; no factor is dispositive. California's ABC test imposes three prongs, each of which the hiring entity must satisfy independently. Failure on any single prong means employee status under ABC. The economic-realities test permits balancing — a strong showing on five factors can outweigh a weak showing on one. ABC does not.

Can a worker be an independent contractor for federal tax purposes and an employee for state law?

Yes. The IRS common-law test and California's ABC test operate independently. A worker who passes the IRS three-category analysis (because the firm does not exercise behavioral or financial control or maintain a traditional employment relationship) can still fail California's B prong if the work falls within the principal's usual course of business. The reverse is also possible but rarer.

Does the Section 530 safe harbor help with state misclassification?

No. Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 provides federal employment-tax relief only. It does not block state UI back assessments, state wage-and-hour claims, state PFML contributions, or state-law private litigation. A federally Section-530-protected employer can still face full state-level exposure.

What is the burden of proof under the ABC test?

The hiring entity carries the burden on each prong. The presumption is that the worker is an employee; the entity must affirmatively prove all three of A, B, and C. Failure to produce evidence on any prong means the worker is classified as an employee by default.

Does Proposition 22 apply outside California?

No. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7448 et seq. is a California-only statutory regime. App-based drivers working in Massachusetts, New Jersey, or other ABC-test states are evaluated under those states' tests. The Massachusetts AG's June 2024 settlement with Uber and Lyft resolved Massachusetts claims under c. 149 §148B; it did not adopt a Prop 22-style classification carve-out.

What is the difference between the 2021 and 2024 DOL rules?

The 2021 rule (86 Fed. Reg. 1168) elevated two "core factors" — control and opportunity for profit — above the others, and provided that when the core factors aligned, the analysis stopped. The 2024 rule (89 Fed. Reg. 1638) restored the longstanding totality-of-circumstances analysis with no pre-weighted factor. As of May 2026, DOL has proposed rescinding the 2024 rule, but the 2024 rule remains the operative regulation unless final rulemaking changes it.

Does the NLRA classification test affect FLSA classification?

No. The NLRA common-law right-to-control test affects collective-bargaining and ULP rights only. The FLSA economic-realities test controls minimum-wage and overtime determinations. A worker can be a contractor for NLRA purposes and an employee for FLSA purposes (and vice versa), though substantial overlap is typical.

How does a worker request an IRS determination?

By filing Form SS-8 (Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding) with the IRS. Either the worker or the firm may file. The IRS reviews the relationship and issues a determination binding for federal employment-tax purposes. Form SS-8 determinations do not bind state agencies.

If You Discover You've Been Doing This Wrong

1. Audit each contractor against each applicable test. Run the FLSA economic-realities, IRS common-law, and applicable state-law tests in parallel. A worker may pass one and fail another. Document the analysis contemporaneously — Section 530's "reasonable basis" requirement and good-faith defenses to FLSA liquidated damages under 29 USC §260 turn on documented reasoning.

2. Identify the prong or factor that fails first. In ABC states, B is usually the structural fail — fix the business definition, change the engagement to truly outside the principal's usual course of business, or reclassify. In multifactor states, the dominant factor is typically control; reduce direction, supervision, scheduling, and exclusive engagement, or reclassify.

3. Quantify back exposure. Three years of federal employment tax under IRC §3509 unreduced rates (if willful), three years of FLSA back wages plus liquidated damages under 29 USC §216(b) (with the willful 29 USC §255(a) extension), four years of California wage-and-hour claims under the UCL window in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, two years of Massachusetts treble damages under c. 149 §150. State UI back contributions in PFML states stack on top; see paid family and medical leave laws by state.

4. Correct the classification prospectively and document the basis. When the analysis indicates employee status, work with counsel on the clean conversion date, W-2 payroll setup, withholding, state remittances, workers' comp coverage, and FLSA-compliant pay practices. The prospective correction can reduce ongoing exposure; it does not eliminate past liability.

5. Consult counsel on disclosure and settlement. State agencies (NJ, MA, CA) offer voluntary-disclosure or compliance-program pathways in some contexts; the federal Classification Settlement Program (IRS Rev. Proc. 85-18 and subsequent guidance) permits negotiated resolution of federal employment-tax liability for past periods. Voluntary disclosure does not block private litigation but can substantially reduce penalties.

The bottom line

Worker classification has three structural failure modes that compound across federal, state, and insurance liabilities. First, the same worker is evaluated under multiple tests simultaneously; passing one does not mean passing the others. Second, the written agreement is one factor only in every test; actual practice controls. Third, in ABC-test states, the B prong fails on the face of the business definition before any factual record develops — fix B or reclassify.

The single highest-leverage decision: identify the strictest applicable test for each worker's work location and engagement, and classify to that bar. Federal compliance follows from state compliance in the ABC-test states; the reverse is not true.

Sources

Federal — statutes and regulations

• 29 USC §203 (FLSA definitions) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/203
• 29 USC §216 (FLSA enforcement and liquidated damages) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216
• 29 USC §255 (FLSA statute of limitations) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/255
• 29 USC §260 (FLSA good-faith defense) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/260
• 29 CFR §§795.100-795.115 (2024 DOL Final Rule) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/part-795
• IRC §3509 (reduced employment-tax rates) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3509
• Treas. Reg. §31.3121(d)-1 (FICA common-law employee) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3121(d)-1
• Treas. Reg. §31.3306(i)-1 (FUTA common-law employee) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3306(i)-1
• Treas. Reg. §31.3401(c)-1 (Income-tax withholding common-law employee) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3401(c)-1
• 49 USC §14501(c) (FAAAA preemption) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/14501

Federal — agency guidance

• DOL Fact Sheet #13 (Employment Relationship) — https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/13-flsa-employment-relationship
• DOL Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 1638 (Jan. 10, 2024) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/10/2024-00067/employee-or-independent-contractor-classification-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act
• DOL Proposed Rescission, 91 Fed. Reg. 9932 (Feb. 27, 2026) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-02-27/pdf/2026-03962.pdf
• IRS Topic 762 (Independent Contractor vs. Employee) — https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762
• IRS Publication 15-A (Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide) — https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15a
• IRS Form SS-8 — https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-ss-8
• Section 530 Relief Requirements — https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/section-530-relief-requirements

State — statutes

• Cal. Lab. Code §§2775-2787 (AB 5 codification) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2775
• Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7448 et seq. (Prop 22) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=7448
• Cal. Lab. Code §226.8 (willful misclassification penalties) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=226.8
• M.G.L. c. 149 §148B (Massachusetts ABC test) — https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section148B
• M.G.L. c. 149 §150 (treble damages) — https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section150
• N.J.S.A. §43:21-19(i)(6) (New Jersey ABC test) — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-43/section-43-21-19/
• N.J.S.A. §34:1A-1.16 (Misclassification Stop-Work Order Act) — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-34/section-34-1a-1-16/
• 820 ILCS 185 (Illinois Employee Classification Act) — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2898
• 820 ILCS 405/212 (Illinois UI Act) — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=082004050HArt.+II&ActID=590
• Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-222 (Connecticut UI) — https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_567.htm
• Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §3-901 (Workplace Fraud Act) — https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gle&section=3-901

Case law

• Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) — https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34743
• S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) — https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/48/341.html
• Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 588 (2024) — https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2024/s279622.html
• Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) — https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-17458/12-17458-2014-08-27.pdf
• Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 986 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2021) — https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-16096/17-16096-2021-01-29.pdf
• Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021) — https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2021/s258191.html
• California Trucking Association v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021) — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55106/20-55106-2021-04-28.html
• Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2015/a-70-12.html
• East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor, 251 N.J. 477 (2022) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2022/a-7-21.html
• Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor, 125 N.J. 567 (1991) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1991/125-n-j-567-0.html
• Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, 488 Mass. 691 (2021) — https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2021/sjc-13106.html
• Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321 (2015) — https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2015/sjc-11757.html
• Latimer v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 216 Conn. 237 (1990) — https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/1990/216-conn-237-3.html
• Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.), 35 N.Y.3d 131 (2020) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2020/13.html
• Matter of Yoga Vida NYC, Inc., 28 N.Y.3d 1013 (2016) — https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2016/199.html
• The Atlanta Opera, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 95 (2023) — https://www.nlrb.gov/case/01-RC-276292
• NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254 (1968) — https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/254/
• FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/07-1391/07-1391-2009-04-21.html
• Travelers Insurance Co. v. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) — https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/645/
• Massachusetts Delivery Association v. Healey, 821 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 2016) — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/15-1379/15-1379-2016-04-21.html