California Employment Law Advocate : California Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Robert Ottinger Law Firm : California, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland : workplace discrimination, harassment, severance packages, wrongful termination, retaliation, sexual harassment, Family Medical Leave Act, overtime violations, executive employee contracts,

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In these challenging economic times (and also in good times) companies try to save dollars by hiring people and labeling them as independent contractors instead of employees.   We get a lot of calls from people who want to know what the difference is between these two labels. 

First, the independent contractor label is usually good for the company and bad for the person.  The company saves money because Independent contractors are not entitled to receive any benefits such as health insurance.  This is a huge savings for companies.  

I write this post so people who are working as independent contractors can tell if they are being illegally deprived of benefits.  Here is an excerpt from the California Department of Industrial Relations that explains how they determine if someone is an independent contractor or an employee:

The most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:

1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;
2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.

Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker’s duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary. (Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288)

Other points to remember in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor are that the existence of a written agreement purporting to establish an independent contractor relationship is not determinative (Borello, Id.at 349), and the fact that a worker is issued a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form is also not determinative with respect to independent contractor status. (Toyota Motor Sales v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 877).