Community Insider Summer 2019 | Page 28

whether the person for whom the services or work was rendered has the ability to control the manner and means of the work performed. The greater the control of the means and methods would likely result in a finding of an employee/employer relationship. Additional factors included, but were not limited to, whether the hirer could discharge the person “at will” which would also support a finding of an employee/ employer relationship. The California Supreme Court was not inclined to continue use of the Totality of Circumstances test. Rather, the Supreme Court initiated its reasoning by characterizing the misclassification of independent contractors as harmful to society at large and unfair to the workers themselves. This decision included a long and exhaustive review of the relevant prior decisions before fashioning a new test. The new test has been called the “ABC” test. 28 | SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY INSIDER SUMMER 2019 Pursuant to the new ABC test, the Court begins its analysis by noting that there is a presumption that a person is an employee for wage or other purposes unless the hiring party can demonstrate the following: (A) that the worker 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) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. Please note that all of the above requirements must be proved in order to demonstrate that the relationship between the employer and the contractor has been properly classified. Each factor must be reviewed and weighed and the employer is well advised to seek legal counsel’s input on this issue. Accurate resolution of this issue has always carried it with it a potential significant impact to Common Interest Developments (“CID”) for example, in terms of whether the landscaper working on the drainage line is an employee or an independent contractor. Specifically, if the person is misclassified by the CID as a contractor and according to the law is truly an employee and the CID does not pay payroll taxes and Social Security contributions and