Sec. 1. (a) "Employment," subject to the other
provisions of this section, means service, including service in interstate
commerce performed for remuneration or under any contract of hire,
written or oral, expressed or implied.
(b) Services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be
deemed to be employment subject to this article irrespective of whether
the common-law relationship of master and servant exists, unless and
until all the following conditions are shown to the satisfaction of the
department:
(1) The individual has been and will continue to be free from
control and direction in connection with the performance of such
service, both under the individual's contract of service and in fact.
(2) The service is performed outside the usual course of the
business for which the service is performed.
(3) The individual:
(A) is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as
that involved in the service performed; or
(B) is a sales agent who receives remuneration solely upon a
commission basis and who is the master of the individual's own
time and effort.
(c) The term also includes the following:
(1) Services performed for remuneration by an officer of a
corporation in the officer's official corporate capacity.
(2) Services performed for remuneration for any employing unit
by an individual:
(A) as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in
distributing products, including but not limited to, meat,
vegetables, fruit, bakery, beverages, or laundry or dry-cleaning
services for the individual's principal; or
(B) as a traveling or city salesman, other than as an agent-driver
or commission-driver, engaged upon a full-time basis in the
solicitation on behalf of, and the transmission to, the
individual's principal (except for sideline sales activities on
behalf of some other person) of orders from wholesalers,
retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other
similar establishments for merchandise for resale or supplies
for use in their business operations.
(d) For purposes of subsection (c)(2), the term "employment" shall
include services described in subsection (c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B) only
if all the following conditions are met:
(1) The contract of service contemplates that substantially all of
the services are to be performed personally by such individual.
(2) The individual does not have a substantial investment in
facilities used in connection with the performance of the services
(other than in facilities for transportation).
(3) The services are not in the nature of a single transaction that
is not part of a continuing relationship with the person for whom
the services are performed.
Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.801; Acts 1971, P.L.355, SEC.13.
As amended by P.L.108-2006, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 34× “al has been and will continue to be free from control and direction in connection with the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; (B) such service is performed outside the usual course of the business for which the service is performed; and…”
Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 86 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “The LALJ concluded that, pursuant to the test detailed in Indiana Code section 22-4-8-1 of the Act, Claimant had been an employee of Company starting in 2014 and was therefore entitled to receive unemployment benefits related to her work.”
Furr v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 482 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Neither provision (A) or (C) of the Ind.Code § 22-4-8-1 test was met. Irvin urges that because it was understood that Furr's status was that of an independent contractor and because no taxes were withheld, th Revie Board's decision should be upheld.”
Q. D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 96 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 43× “Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1 (b). Thus, pursuant to the terms of the statute, all workers are presumed to be employees until an employer demonstrates that all three factors are fulfilled.”
Jug's Catering, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Bd., 714 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Nor does Jug’s challenge the ALJ’s analysis of the facts under I.C. § 22-4-8-1. 1 Therefore, as we see no error on our own review, we conclude the ALJ did not erroneously determine the chefs and servers hired by Jug’s to be employees for purposes of unemployment contributions.”
Now Courier, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 871 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “However, in section 22-4-8-3, the statutory scheme then provides that “employment” for the purpose of eligibility “shall not include” certain other specified services. I.C. § 22-4-8-3. An additional provision states that “employment” for the Article 4 unemployment compensation…”
Turner Transp., Inc. v. Indiana Emp. Sec. Bd., 448 N.E.2d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “(Turner) appeals the decision of a liability referee for the Indiana Employment Security Division that drivers hired by Turner were "employees" under Ind.Code 22-4-8-1, and that Turner thus owed unemployment taxes demanded by the Division.”
T.W. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 952 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 4 Ind.Code § 22-4-8-1. Clearly, as in Siddiqi , if the claimant is receiving income from self-employment, the claimant will be, at a minimum, subject to a reduction in benefits.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(a) — 3 cases
Jug's Catering, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Bd., 714 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
“Nor does Jug’s challenge the ALJ’s analysis of the facts under I.C. § 22-4-8-1. 1 Therefore, as we see no error on our own review, we conclude the ALJ did not erroneously determine the chefs and servers hired by Jug’s to be employees for purposes of unemployment contributions.”
Turner Transp., Inc. v. Indiana Emp. Sec. Bd., 448 N.E.2d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
“(Turner) appeals the decision of a liability referee for the Indiana Employment Security Division that drivers hired by Turner were "employees" under Ind.Code 22-4-8-1, and that Turner thus owed unemployment taxes demanded by the Division.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(a)(A) — 1 case
Turner Transp., Inc. v. Indiana Emp. Sec. Bd., 448 N.E.2d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
“(Turner) appeals the decision of a liability referee for the Indiana Employment Security Division that drivers hired by Turner were "employees" under Ind.Code 22-4-8-1, and that Turner thus owed unemployment taxes demanded by the Division.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(b) — 3 cases
Q. D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 96 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
“Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1 (b). Thus, pursuant to the terms of the statute, all workers are presumed to be employees until an employer demonstrates that all three factors are fulfilled.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(b)(1) — 2 cases
Q. D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 96 N.E.3d 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
“Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1 (b). Thus, pursuant to the terms of the statute, all workers are presumed to be employees until an employer demonstrates that all three factors are fulfilled.”
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(b)(2) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(b)(3) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 22-4-8-1(b)(3)(A) — 1 case
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.