3 ms·
> 3. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
by a1369209993 6y ago
> 3. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
My reading of this is that publishing a Doing-Business-As notice would qualify as independently establishing a business, and you would be ("is", not "has been") customarily engaged in that business as soon as you start operating it. I wouldn't trust a judge not to willfully misinterpret this if they had a reason, though.
- graeme 6y agoI took the emphasis to be “independently established” trade, past tense. However, I’ll asmit I have less understanding of point 3 vs. point 2. That said, this reddit post seems to indicate DBA was insufficient, and LLC rules are complex. However, I am not sure these directly address what makes for an established trade. https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/eurg0j/need_major_help_with_ab5_and_problems_forming_an/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/eurg0j/need... https://www.targetcw.com/blog/1099/ab5 https://www.targetcw.com/blog/1099/ab5 It seems this comes from the dynamex decision. Not clear if the judges thought through the starting point of being a contractor. They talk about seeking a license and seeking business. But I don’t know that they discussed how a business can legally hire a fresh contractor with legal certainty. There would be a legitimate fear the contractor may seek employee protections after work begins. Really we’d need legal advice on this point. I think point 2 is the strongest part of the argument I made above. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/05/five-key-issues-california-employers-must-know-supreme-courts-ruling-independent-contractors/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/05/five-k...