863 To Go, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 99 A.3d 629

863 To Go, Inc. operates a Burlington-area food-delivery service with five groups: employer, contracted restaurants, Delivery Drivers, Inc. (DDI), the drivers, and consumers.
Customers place orders by phone or website, paying the delivery charge and meal price; employer pays the restaurant and DDIs’ commissions.
Delivery drivers are drawn from DDI’s pool and meet with employer representatives; drivers decide whether to accept assignments.
Drivers do not take orders, set sale terms, or “sell” the product; they deliver and collect payment if needed.
At night, drivers cash out; they keep tips and employer sends funds to DDI to cover their commissions and per-trip payments.
The Vermont Employment Security Board concluded the drivers were not exempt as direct sellers; employer challenged, arguing the drivers were direct sellers under 21 V.S.A. § 1301(6)(C)(xxi).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether drivers qualify as direct sellers under 21 V.S.A. §1301(6)(C)(xxi).	To Go contends drivers meet direct-seller criteria.	Department argues drivers do not sell; exemption not met.	Not direct sellers; exemption not met; employer must contribute.

Fleece on Earth v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 181 Vt. 458 (2007) (Board’s deference and statutory interpretation principles applied)
Blue v. Dep’t of Labor, 190 Vt. 228 (2011) (Board’s expertise in unemployment law upheld)
Bouchard v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 174 Vt. 588 (2002) (presumption that Board’s conclusions are correct)
Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc. v. United States, 910 F. Supp. 1316 (E.D. Tenn. 1995) (federal direct-seller analysis cited for comparison)
In re Tariff Filing of Cent. Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp., 172 Vt. 14 (2001) (statutory interpretation framework referenced)