Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 155 A.3d 738

Southwest Appraisal Group subcontracted auto damage appraisers who were licensed, provided their own equipment, received 1099s, and lacked employer-provided benefits; the company supplied only standardized estimating software.
Connecticut Department of Labor audited Southwest for 2009–2010 and concluded six appraisers were misclassified as independent contractors, assessing unemployment taxes and interest.
An appeals referee upheld the audit; the Board of Review reversed as to three appraisers (Gerber, Mansfield, Zembruski) but sustained liability for three others (Draco, Kehoe, Patrick) because there was no evidence they actually performed work for third parties.
The trial court affirmed the board’s decision, endorsing the view that part C of the ABC test requires proof the worker actually performed services for entities other than the putative employer.
The Supreme Court considered whether part C (customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business) requires proof of work for third parties or whether such work is one factor in a totality-of-the-circumstances multifactor inquiry.
The Supreme Court held evidence of services for third parties is relevant but not dispositive; remanded for further factfinding under the correct legal standard and reversed the trial court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether part C of the ABC test requires proof the putative independent contractor actually performed services for third parties to qualify as independently established	Part C does not require actual third‑party work; such work is one factor among many — focus on efforts and indicia of independent business	Part C requires evidence the worker actually provided services to others (showing they are customarily engaged and not economically dependent)	The Court: Actual third‑party work is a relevant factor but not a prerequisite; apply a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances multifactor test
Whether the Board’s decision and trial court ruling should be sustained or remanded	Given other indicia (licensure, business cards, home offices, profit/loss risk), remand or judgment for plaintiff; board misapplied legal standard	Deference to board’s time‑tested interpretation; affirm liability for those lacking third‑party work evidence	Vacated trial court judgment; remand to Board for factfinding applying correct part C standard (multifactor analysis)

JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413 (Conn. 2003) (addresses ABC test and explains that mere contractual freedom to work for others does not by itself satisfy part C)
Standard Oil of Connecticut, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 320 Conn. 611 (Conn. 2016) (discusses construction of the Unemployment Compensation Act and deference to agency interpretations)
F.A.S. Int’l, Inc. v. Reilly, 179 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1979) (part C satisfied where workers performed similar services independently of the employer)
Athol Daily News v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment & Training, 439 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2003) (part C inquiry framed as whether worker is operating an independent enterprise)
Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc., 325 P.3d 560 (Colo. 2014) (multifactor totality test; lack of third‑party work not dispositive where other indicia of independence exist)
Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. Dept. of Labor, 125 N.J. 567 (N.J. 1991) (multifactor approach and consideration of proportion of income from putative employer in part C analysis)
Margoles v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 221 Wis. 2d 260 (Wis. 1998) (applications of multifactor tests to part C-related analysis)