99 A.3d 243
D.C.2014Background
- PSS hires workers to perform federal government tasks; dispute whether Caison is employee or independent contractor.
- DOES denied unemployment benefits, triggering an OAH hearing to determine classification.
- Caison was employed by PSS for GSA from 2002, later shifted to 1099; 2007 contract labeled him contractor.
- ALJ allocated burden to prove contractor status, relied on Spackman factors, and found no control by PSS.
- Court vacated ALJ decision, held burden misapplied, and remanded for new Spackman-factor analysis with proper burden allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof on independent contractor status | Caison argues he should be presumed employee; burden on PSS | PSS contends claimant must prove independent contractor status | Remand for proper burden allocation to employer |
| Application of the Spackman factors | ALJ failed to consider all factors and early employment history | Spackman factors govern; evidence insufficiently weighed | Remand to reconsider Spackman factors with correct burden |
| Presumption of compensability | There is a presumption claimant is an employee when wages are paid | Employer bears burden to prove exemption as independent contractor | Remand with reanalysis recognizing presumption in claimant's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Spackman v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 590 A.2d 515 (D.C. 1991) (central framework for employee vs. independent contractor analysis)
- Hickey v. Bomers, 28 A.3d 1119 (D.C. 2011) (control factor; clarifies burden and factors)
- Brannum v. District of Columbia Pub. Sch., 946 A.2d 962 (D.C. 2008) (liberal construction of unemployment act; burden rules)
- RosExpress, Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 602 A.2d 659 (D.C. 1992) (context of employee vs. contractor distinctions)
- Green v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 499 A.2d 870 (D.C. 1985) (general eligibility criteria and liberal construction)