ABC test in Massachusetts

2024See Sebago, 471 Mass. at 331 (associations paid drivers to perform labor for associations' customers); Coverall, 447 Mass. at 853-854 (applying ABC test where individual was paid monthly by putative employer for services provided to putative employer's customer).

2020In either context this three-part test has come to be known as the "ABC test." See Coverall North Amer., supra. The Supreme Judicial Court has made clear that § 148B "has no application where the parties have neither an independent contractor nor an employment relationship." Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321, 329 (2015), quoting Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 , 624 n.17 (2013).

2026L. c. 149, § 148B (a) (commonly referred to as the "ABC test"); namely that, "[1] the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact ['prong a']; and, "[2] the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer ['prong b']; and, "[3] the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed ['prong c']." 5 See Somers v. Converged Access, I

2022See Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 489 Mass. 356 , 360 (2022) (Wage Act case discussing "ABC test"); Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 454 Mass. 582, 589 (2009) (Wage Act case noting "nearly identical language in G.

2024See Sebago, 471 Mass. at 331 (associations paid drivers to perform labor for associations' customers); Coverall, 447 Mass. at 853-854 (applying ABC test where individual was paid monthly by putative employer for services provided to putative employer's customer).

2020In either context this three-part test has come to be known as the "ABC test." See Coverall North Amer., supra. The Supreme Judicial Court has made clear that § 148B "has no application where the parties have neither an independent contractor nor an employment relationship." Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321, 329 (2015), quoting Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 , 624 n.17 (2013).

2020In either context this three-part test has come to be known as the "ABC test." See Coverall North Amer., supra. The Supreme Judicial Court has made clear that § 148B "has no application where the parties have neither an independent contractor nor an employment relationship." Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321, 329 (2015), quoting Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 , 624 n.17 (2013).

2020Depianti, supra, at 624 n.17; accord id. at 626 (Cordy, J.). "[C]ompany A would not be liable for misclassification of the third-party workers" because "company B would be the agent of any misclassification." Id. n.17; accord Echavarria, 2016 WL 3566986 , at *2 ("It is illogical to hold a defendant liable for an employee's misclassification under the ABC test if a defendant only had a tangential relationship to a plaintiff.").

2020The ABC test is only useful "to resolve whether a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor or employee;" it "does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 738 , 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2019); accord Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2018); Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., 944 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying California law); Perez v. Access Bio, Inc., no.

2020The ABC test is only useful "to resolve whether a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor or employee;" it "does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 738 , 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2019); accord Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2018); Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., 944 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying California law); Perez v. Access Bio, Inc., no.

2020The ABC test is only useful "to resolve whether a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor or employee;" it "does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 738 , 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2019); accord Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2018); Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., 944 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying California law); Perez v. Access Bio, Inc., no.

2020The ABC test is only useful "to resolve whether a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor or employee;" it "does not fit analytically with and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability." Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 738 , 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2019); accord Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2018); Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., 944 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying California law); Perez v. Access Bio, Inc., no.

2003As stated recently by the Appeals Court in Boston Bicycle Couriers, Inc. v. Deputy Director of the Div. of Employment & Training, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 473 (2002), part (c) “seeks to discern whether the worker is wearing the hat of an employee of the employing company, or is wearing the hat of his own independent enterprise.” Id. at 480 .

2003As stated recently by the Appeals Court in Boston Bicycle Couriers, Inc. v. Deputy Director of the Div. of Employment & Training, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 473 (2002), part (c) “seeks to discern whether the worker is wearing the hat of an employee of the employing company, or is wearing the hat of his own independent enterprise.” Id. at 480 .

2003See, e.g., Clayton v. State, supra at 87 (log cutters harvesting timber on land owned by lumbermill not independent contractors); AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Department of Employment Sec., supra at 407 (drivers’ delivery business not established independently of messenger service company); Lewiston Daily Sun v. Unemployment Ins.

2003See, e.g., Clayton v. State, supra at 87 (log cutters harvesting timber on land owned by lumbermill not independent contractors); AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Department of Employment Sec., supra at 407 (drivers’ delivery business not established independently of messenger service company); Lewiston Daily Sun v. Unemployment Ins.

2002See Tasters Ltd., Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 863 P.2d 12, 17, 22-27 (Utah App. 1993); Matter of BKU Enterprises, Inc., 513 N.W.2d 382 , 384-385 & nn.1-2 (N.D. 1994); Stover Delivery Sys., Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 11 S.W.3d 685, 691-698 (Mo. App. 1999).

2002See Tasters Ltd., Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 863 P.2d 12, 17, 22-27 (Utah App. 1993); Matter of BKU Enterprises, Inc., 513 N.W.2d 382 , 384-385 & nn.1-2 (N.D. 1994); Stover Delivery Sys., Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 11 S.W.3d 685, 691-698 (Mo. App. 1999).

2002See Tasters Ltd., Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 863 P.2d 12, 17, 22-27 (Utah App. 1993); Matter of BKU Enterprises, Inc., 513 N.W.2d 382 , 384-385 & nn.1-2 (N.D. 1994); Stover Delivery Sys., Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 11 S.W.3d 685, 691-698 (Mo. App. 1999).

2002See Tasters Ltd., Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 863 P.2d 12, 17, 22-27 (Utah App. 1993); Matter of BKU Enterprises, Inc., 513 N.W.2d 382 , 384-385 & nn.1-2 (N.D. 1994); Stover Delivery Sys., Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 11 S.W.3d 685, 691-698 (Mo. App. 1999).