How Verdant Treated Joseph As An Employee
Verdant Strategies exercised significant control over Joseph, imposing employee-like restrictions, oversight, and expectations that are inconsistent with an independent contractor relationship. This violates the “A” prong of the ABC Test under California Labor Law (AB-5), which requires that independent contractors be free from the hiring entity’s control and direction.
1. Strict Approval Processes That Prevented Independent Work
- Verdant Strategies required explicit approval for all content (social media posts, blogs, newsletters, and videos) before publishing.
- Verdant Strategies ignored contractual provisions granting Joseph discretion in how and when to execute tasks.
- Despite delays in approvals, Verdant Strategies blamed Joseph for missed deadlines—even though the delays were caused by Verdant Strategies’ own inaction.
- Joseph was expected to chase down approvals rather than autonomously executing deliverables.
2. Mandatory Availability on Employer’s Terms
- Verdant Strategies required Joseph to be available on demand, including on holidays and outside standard working hours.
- Verdant Strategies would often drop urgent, last-minute tasks and expect immediate action, disregarding Joseph’s autonomy.
- There was no flexibility to set independent work hours, which is a key distinction between an employee and a contractor.
- Failure to immediately respond to requests was treated as non-compliance, reinforcing Verdant Strategies’ employee-like expectations.
3. Micromanagement & Workflow Control
- Verdant Strategies dictated which tools and platforms Joseph had to use, preventing Joseph from working with their own preferred tools.
- Joseph was required to follow Verdant Strategies‘ Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), rather than independently determining the best method for task completion.
- Every step of the workflow had to be aligned with Verdant Strategies‘ internal approval chain, rather than allowing Joseph to complete projects at their discretion.
4. Mandatory Meeting Attendance & Excessive Oversight
- Verdant Strategies required Joseph to attend long, frequent meetings, many of which were irrelevant to Joseph’s role.
- Verdant Strategies treated these meetings as mandatory, rather than optional strategy discussions.
- Time spent in meetings was not billable, which is inconsistent with how independent contractors should be compensated.
- Joseph was expected to provide daily or near-daily updates—another hallmark of an employer-employee relationship rather than an independent business relationship.
5. Retaliation for Asserting Independent Contractor Rights
- When Joseph questioned their classification and asserted the right to work independently, Verdant Strategies retaliated.
- Verdant Strategies used its own procedural delays as an excuse to falsely accuse Joseph of non-performance.
- Joseph was terminated in bad faith for failing to act like an employee, despite having a contract that explicitly stated otherwise.
- Verdant Strategies then defamed Joseph via a negative review, further punishing them for asserting their contractual rights.
Final Thoughts: Verdant Strategies Exercised Employee-Level Control
Verdant Strategies’ actions directly contradict the terms of an independent contractor agreement and align more closely with an employer-employee relationship.
Under California’s AB-5 law, these factors strongly indicate misclassification, exposing Verdant Strategies to liability for unpaid wages, penalties, and tax fraud violations.
