There is a tripartite test for independent contractor under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation statute (and many other States), the so-called “ABC” test. Under this test, services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Department of Labor that: (a) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; (b) Such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and, (c) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. All three of the above conditions must exist; the New Jersey unemployment compensation test traditionally has been one of the most difficult to meet and the NJ Supreme Court has adopted this test.
In this case, the Employer claimed that the exotic dancers who worked at the club from 2002-2005, were independent contractors. The DOL Commissioner found that the dancers were employees because they worked for tips, which represented compensation under the statute. The Court also found that none of the three prongs of the ABC test were satisfied. The case is entitled Dance, Inc. v NJDOL and issued from the New Jersey Appellate Division.
The statue defined “employment” as any service “performed for remuneration or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied.” This was broad enough to encompass “all compensation for personal services, including commission and bonuses and the cash value of all compensation in any medium other than cash.” Although wages paid by an employer were one type of compensation, tips or “gratuities” were as well.
The dancers worked only for tips from the customers. They all signed a “State Rental/License Agreement” setting forth that they were independent contractors. Also, they had to “lease” the right to use the club’s stage. There was no rental amount set forth; it was also in English, with the fact that the dancers spoke only Spanish or Portuguese.
The Company claimed that the dancers were independent contractors who took no direction from the Company, could work when they wanted and came and went as they pleased. The Court noted, however, that the website showed pictures of numerous, scantily-dressed women and gave their work schedules. The dancers performed every night, demonstrating that they were (obviously) integral to the Club’s operation, a sure sign of employee status.
These independent contractor tests, especially an ABC type test, are very hard for an employer to overcome. That is why retaining independent contractor relationships with single-person “businesses” is often very dangerous, because these are exactly the kind of people who should be deemed independent contractors, because that is what they want. But the law works against the entities that retain their services by imposing an onerous burden of proof on the putative employer.
Get your Sherpas and keep climbing…