There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a worker performing services for which a license is required pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or who is performing such services for a person who is required to obtain such a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor. Proof of independent contractor status includes satisfactory proof of these factors:
(a)That the individual has the right to control and discretion as to the manner of performance of the contract for services in that the result of the work and not the means by which it is accomplished is the primary factor bargained for.
(b)That the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established business.
(c)That the individual’s independent contractor status is bona fide and not a subterfuge to avoid employee status. A bona fide independent contractor status is further evidenced by the presence of cumulative factors such as substantial investment other than personal services in the business, holding out to be in business for oneself, bargaining for a contract to complete a specific project for compensation by project rather than by time, control over the time and place the work is performed, supplying the tools or instrumentalities used in the work other than tools and instrumentalities normally and customarily provided by employees, hiring employees, performing work that is not ordinarily in the course of the principal’s work, performing work that requires a particular skill, holding a license pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, the intent by the parties that the work relationship is of an independent contractor status, or that the relationship is not severable or terminable at will by the principal but gives rise to an action for breach of contract.
In addition to the factors contained in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), any person performing any function or activity for which a license is required pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code shall hold a valid contractors’ license as a condition of having independent contractor status.
For purposes of workers’ compensation law, this presumption is a supplement to the existing statutory definitions of employee and independent contractor, and is not intended to lessen the coverage of employees under Division 4 and Division 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
38
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F. Supp. 3d 923 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F. Supp. 3d 923 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 4× “5 , which states: "There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a worker performing services for which a license is required pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000 ) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or who is performing…”
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Bernick, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2281 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Labor Code section 2750.5 sets forth a statutory presumption as to whether a person or entity is an employee or independent contractor.”
Fernandez v. Lawson, 71 P.3d 779 (Cal. 2003).
· cites it 4× “5, comply with OSHA tree trimming regulations, or is such tree trimming a "household domestic service" excluded from OSHA? The Courts of Appeal are in conflict on this issue.”
Fillmore v. Irvine, 146 Cal. App. 3d 649 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “California Labor Code § 2750.5 applies to the factual situation presented, creating a rebuttable presumption that plaintiff Terence Fillmore acted as an employee of defendant Loren Sutton, rather than as an independent contractor.”
Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 67 Cal. Comp. Cases 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “On this matter, Labor Code section 2750.5 provides that “any person performing any function or activity for which a [contractor’s] license is required .”
State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 706 P.2d 1146 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 2× “" Labor Code section 2750.5 enacted in 1978 provides in its first paragraph for a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a person for whom a license is required pursuant to chapter 9 (commencing with § 7000) of division 3 of the Business and Professions Code…”
Linton v. Desoto Cab Co., 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
“…not intended to lessen the coverage of employees under Division 4 [the Worker's Compensation Act] and Division 5." (Lab. Code, § 2750.5, subd. (c).)”
Torres v. Reardon, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, §§ 2750.5, subd. (a), and 3353; S.”
The Fifth Day, LLC v. Bolotin, 172 Cal. App. 4th 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “1 Does Not Limit the Circumstances in Which Consultants to Owner-builders Must Be Licensed Plaintiff asserts that, pursuant to section 7026.”
Travelers Ins. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “1 The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (board) granted reconsideration and determined that regard *1036 less of the weight of the evidence tending to show the applicant was an independent contractor, Labor Code section 2750.5 prohibits a finding of independent contractor…”
Blackwell v. Vasilas, 244 Cal. App. 4th 160 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“(Lab. Code, § 2750.5.) Either way, the burden of proof was on Vasilas.”
Loranger v. Jones, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“” (Lab. Code, § 2750.5.) The Joneses also note the uncontradicted evidence that Larsen and the minor children working on the construction of the Joneses’ house were unlicensed employees of Loranger.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.