The ABC’s Of Worker Classification Are Once Again Before The Connecticut Supreme Court

adminWe have blogged before about the “ABC Test,” used in Connecticut to determine whether a worker is considered an employee for purposes of eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. Most recently, my partner Michael LaVelle discussed a 2016 Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil of Connecticut, Inc. v. Administrator, in which the Court held that workers who installed and serviced home heating systems were independent contractors rather than employees under the ABC test.  They exercised enough control over their own schedules and performance of the work to satisfy part “A” of the test, and the customers’ homes, where the work was performed, could not be considered the employer’s places of business, since they remained under the homeowners’ control, thus satisfying part “B.”

A case now awaiting argument at the Court addresses part “C” of the test, which was not at issue in the Standard Oil case.  Part C requires that a worker, to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee, “is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”  In applying this test, the Connecticut Department of Labor examines such factors as whether the individual has established a business entity, has business cards or other marketing materials for the business, has a clientele that includes other customers in addition to the putative employer, employs others, performs services under the individual’s name rather than that of the putative employer, and faces the prospect of both profit and loss.

In Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC, v. Administrator, the Employment Security Board of Review concluded that licensed appraisers engaged by Southwest to provide auto damage appraisals to insurance companies were employees of Southwest, not contractors.  The Board found that they were not “customarily engaged” in an independent business or occupation because they did not perform similar services for other clients or customers during the time that they performed services for Southwest.  The Superior Court affirmed, and Southwest appealed.  The case has been fully briefed, but has not yet been scheduled for oral argument.

In the briefs the State argues, among other things, that its interpretation of the statutory test ensures that workers classified as contractors will be economically independent, in that they will not face unemployment and loss of all income from work if the relationship with a particular customer ends. Southwest argues that the statute has never been interpreted to require that in order to be considered a contractor, a worker must be actually performing services for others at the same time that he or she is performing services for the putative employer.  Southwest contends that imposing this allegedly new requirement will be damaging to the Connecticut economy.

Whatever one thinks about either the statutory interpretation argument or the potential economic consequences of a decision in either direction, it is worth noting that the State’s position is broadly consistent with the U.S. Department of Labor’s July 2015 Administrator’s Interpretation on “The Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s ‘Suffer or Permit’ Standard in the Identification of Employees Who Are Misclassified as Independent Contractors.”  That detailed guidance document on the question of whether workers are properly classified as employees or contractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act states that the issue of economic dependence is “the ultimate question.”  This is an area where different tests are used for different purposes – e.g. unemployment compensation, tax matters, the FLSA – and a more consistent set of standards would at least have the virtue of reducing uncertainty in classifying workers.  Connecticut employers who use independent contractors in their business operations should be awaiting a decision in the Southwest Appraisal Group case with interest.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts


Jump to Page