ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 405
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 405/212 (2026)

Service performed by an individual for an employing unit, whether or not such individual employs others in connection with the performance of such services, shall be deemed to be employment unless and until it is proven in any proceeding where such issue is involved that--     A

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 405/212) (from Ch. 48, par. 322)
    Sec. 212. Service performed by an individual for an employing unit, whether or not such individual employs others in connection with the performance of such services, shall be deemed to be employment unless and until it is proven in any proceeding where such issue is involved that--
    A. Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services, both under his contract of service and in fact; and
    B. Such service is either outside the usual course of the 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 engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.
(Source: Laws 1951, p. 32.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 776 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 776 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 10× “The Director determined that floor measurers and floorcovering installers whose services were utilized by Carpetland were employees rather than independent contractors and, therefore, were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/212…”
AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 763 N.E.2d 272 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 4× “(AFM), were “independent contractors” within the meaning of section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2000)). In two separate administrative proceedings, the Department of Employment Security (Department) determined that the drivers were employees and…”
SMRJ, INC. v. Russell, 884 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 8× “earing because the Director’s representative who conducted the administrative hearing was biased against its interests, (2) it was not the employer of the subject workers, (3) its payments to the subject workers were not wages, (4) the subject workers were independent…”
Cohen Furniture Co. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 718 N.E.2d 1058 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 10× “[1] Cohen filed a written protest to the assessment and requested an administrative hearing, arguing that because the carpet installers were independent contractors, it was exempt from making contributions for them pursuant to section 212 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/212 (West…”
Chicago Messenger Serv. v. Jordan, 825 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to an audit, the Director determined that certain couriers who worked for CMS were employees rather than independent contractors, and thus, they were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2002)). The Director…”
Thomas Costello v. BeavEx, Inc., 810 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2016). “Prong two only requires common evidence about BeavEx’s business model, which is applicable to all class members.”
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 746 N.E.2d 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 10× “820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1998). The Director further determined that Carpetland owes $38,977.”
AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 733 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 4× “820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1996). The Board affirmed the Department's decision.”
United Delivery Serv., Ltd. v. Didrickson, 659 N.E.2d 82 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “322 (now 820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1992))). Following an objection from UDS, the Director reviewed and endorsed her representative’s report.”
Anderson v. First Am. Grp. of Companies, 818 N.E.2d 743 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “The word “and” joins sections 2(1), (2), and (3), which indicates the legislative intent for all three prongs to be met in order to fall within the statutory exclusion in the Wage Act’s definition of “employee.” The Illinois Supreme Court’s construction of section 212 of the…”
Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., 817 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “” 820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2000). The court found that, “[bjecause the three conditions of section 212 are phrased in the conjunctive, all three conditions must be satisfied for the independent-contractor exemption to apply.”
Thomas Adams v. Richard Catrambone & Great Lakes Bldg. Materials, Inc., 359 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2004). “The assertion that Catrambone siphoned money from the corporation is in paragraph fifteen of the complaint, where Adams alleges that "in the course of conducting business, the Plaintiff ascertained and determined that the Defendant, Richard Catrambone, failed to disclose and…”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— 820 ILCS 405/212(A) — 9 cases
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 776 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2002). “The Director determined that floor measurers and floorcovering installers whose services were utilized by Carpetland were employees rather than independent contractors and, therefore, were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/212…”
Cohen Furniture Co. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 718 N.E.2d 1058 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “[1] Cohen filed a written protest to the assessment and requested an administrative hearing, arguing that because the carpet installers were independent contractors, it was exempt from making contributions for them pursuant to section 212 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/212 (West…”
Chicago Messenger Serv. v. Jordan, 825 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Pursuant to an audit, the Director determined that certain couriers who worked for CMS were employees rather than independent contractors, and thus, they were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2002)). The Director…”
SMRJ, INC. v. Russell, 884 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “earing because the Director’s representative who conducted the administrative hearing was biased against its interests, (2) it was not the employer of the subject workers, (3) its payments to the subject workers were not wages, (4) the subject workers were independent…”
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 746 N.E.2d 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1998). The Director further determined that Carpetland owes $38,977.”
— 820 ILCS 405/212(B) — 12 cases
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 776 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2002). “The Director determined that floor measurers and floorcovering installers whose services were utilized by Carpetland were employees rather than independent contractors and, therefore, were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/212…”
Cohen Furniture Co. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 718 N.E.2d 1058 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “[1] Cohen filed a written protest to the assessment and requested an administrative hearing, arguing that because the carpet installers were independent contractors, it was exempt from making contributions for them pursuant to section 212 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/212 (West…”
Chicago Messenger Serv. v. Jordan, 825 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Pursuant to an audit, the Director determined that certain couriers who worked for CMS were employees rather than independent contractors, and thus, they were not exempt under section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2002)). The Director…”
SMRJ, INC. v. Russell, 884 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “earing because the Director’s representative who conducted the administrative hearing was biased against its interests, (2) it was not the employer of the subject workers, (3) its payments to the subject workers were not wages, (4) the subject workers were independent…”
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 746 N.E.2d 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1998). The Director further determined that Carpetland owes $38,977.”
— 820 ILCS 405/212(C) — 4 cases
AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 763 N.E.2d 272 (Ill. 2001). “(AFM), were “independent contractors” within the meaning of section 212 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/212 (West 2000)). In two separate administrative proceedings, the Department of Employment Security (Department) determined that the drivers were employees and…”
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 746 N.E.2d 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “820 ILCS 405/212 (West 1998). The Director further determined that Carpetland owes $38,977.”
AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Ill. 2001).
SMRJ, Inc. v. Russell (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
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.