Career Development Center, Inc. v. Virginia Employment Commission, 0420212

Career Development Center, Inc. (CDC) is a union-operated nonprofit that provides vocational classes to Goodyear union members; it hires outside instructors for short, varied courses.
Christopher Walker, a welding instructor, taught classes initially via GreenWood, then entered a written CDC "Instruction Agreement" hiring him April–July 2017.
The agreement required Walker to design courses, prepare a syllabus, collect evaluations, and teach personally; CDC scheduled classes, supplied materials, determined students, and could not be assigned without consent.
The contract allowed either party to cancel on 30 days’ notice (CDC could cancel on 7 days for low enrollment/misconduct); Walker was paid hourly, plus $160 design fee and $40/day travel reimbursement.
Walker filed for unemployment in Nov. 2017; a Field Tax Representative and then the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) applied the IRS 20-factor test (per Code § 60.2-212(C)) and found 14 factors favoring employee status, 4 favoring independent-contractor status, and 2 inconclusive.
The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond affirmed VEC’s decision; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding VEC’s fact findings were supported by evidence and there was no legal error.

Issue	CDC's Argument	VEC's Argument	Held
Whether Walker was an employee or independent contractor under Code § 60.2-212(C) (20-factor IRS test)	Walker/CDC argued the relationship fit independent-contractor factors (e.g., no training, part-time, no reports)	VEC argued the preponderance of the 20 factors (14 of 20) showed employee status (e.g., integration, personal service, scheduling, expense payments, termination rights)	Court held VEC’s factor-by-factor findings were supported by evidence and, absent fraud, conclusive; Walker was an employee.
Whether the circuit court erred in affirming VEC (sufficiency of evidence / legal error)	CDC contended the circuit court should have reversed as VEC’s findings were unsupported and legally erroneous	VEC relied on statutory review limits (Code § 60.2-500(C)) and that the agency properly applied the 20-factor test	Court held the circuit court did not err: the agency’s factual findings were supported by evidence, no fraud alleged, and no legal error was shown.

Va. Emp. Comm’n v. Porter-Blaine Corp., 27 Va. App. 153 (1998) (judicial review of VEC factual findings limited; findings conclusive if supported by evidence and absence of fraud)
Intermodal Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 234 Va. 596 (1988) (distinguishes question of law from question of fact on employee status)
Baker v. Nussman, 152 Va. 293 (1929) (employee classification principles)
Brown v. Fox, 189 Va. 509 (1949) (worker status determined from particular facts)
Va. Emp. Comm’n v. A.I.M. Corp., 225 Va. 338 (1983) (Act construed liberally; exemptions narrowly)
Yard Bird, Inc. v. Va. Emp. Comm’n, 28 Va. App. 215 (1998) (burden shifts to employer to prove nonemployee status once VEC shows services for remuneration)