California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 3353 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

“Independent contractor” means any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2021 · leading case: S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989). · cites it 2× “) The meaning and content of the statutory control test has been clear since at least 1947 when this court explained: "An independent contractor is one `who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of…”

Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,888 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “) Labor Code section 3353 defines an independent contractor as "any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.”

Torres v. Reardon, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “) However, an independent contractor, defined as one “who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished,” is not an employee.”

Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “(quoting Cal. Lab. Code § 3353 ). Id. at 350 . Id.”

Baugh v. Rogers, 148 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1944). “” (Lab. Code, § 3353.) The distinction between the status of independent contractor and that of employee has often been considered by this court, and it is well established that a material and generally conclusive factor is the right of the employer to exercise complete and…”

Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 656 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Harris, however, contends that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was an employee instead of an independent contractor. 1. State Law Under state law, in particular, the California Labor Code, whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee…”

Germann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 46 Cal. Comp. Cases 1062 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “) 5 Labor Code section 3353 provides: ‘“Independent contractor’ means any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his *783 principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is…”

Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co., 208 Cal. App. 2d 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962). “2d 167 ] ; Lab. Code, § 3353.) The most important factor, in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor, is the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired; and, in this regard, the right to discharge an employee at will,…”

An Indep. Home Support Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “) However, an independent contractor, who is defined as a “person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished” (Lab.”

Lumia v. Roper Pump Co., 724 F. Supp. 694 (N.D. Cal. 1989). · cites it 2× “*698 Labor Code section 3353 defines an independent contractor as one: who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.”

Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Prods., Inc., 211 Cal. App. 3d 1067 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “” (Lab. Code, § 3353.) “The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.”

Perguica v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 179 P.2d 812 (Cal. 1947). “” (Lab. Code, § 3353.) The distinction between the status of an independent contractor and that of an employee rests upon several important considerations.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.