Verdant Strategies’ own language and internal communications further demonstrate that Joseph was treated as an employee rather than an independent contractor. Throughout the engagement, Verdant Strategies referred to Joseph’s work as being done “in-house”, directly contradicting the terms of the independent contractor agreement.
1. Verdant Strategies Repeatedly Described Joseph as Part of the “Internal Team”
- Verdant Strategies repeatedly referred to Joseph’s role in a manner that suggested full integration into Verdant Strategies’ internal operations, rather than as an external service provider.
- Leadership frequently described Joseph’s contributions as “in-house work”, blurring the distinction between an independent contractor and a traditional employee.
- Verdant Strategies’ expectations and directives implied that Joseph was expected to operate as part of Verdant Strategies‘ internal staff, rather than an autonomous business entity.
2. Company’s Oversight Contradicted Independent Contractor Status
- Joseph was expected to adhere to internal processes and workflows, rather than determining their own methods for completing tasks.
- Verdant Strategies imposed strict approval processes, required participation in meetings, and dictated work schedules, reinforcing the degree of control typically reserved for employees.
- By integrating Joseph into its day-to-day internal operations, Verdant Strategies further strengthened the case for misclassification under California’s ABC Test (AB-5).
3. Employer’s Own Statements Undermine Its Classification Defense
- If Joseph was truly independent, Verdant Strategies would not have described their work as “in-house” or required them to function as part of the internal team.
- Verdant Strategies’ language and conduct contradict the legal requirements for independent contractor relationships, further demonstrating misclassification and intentional control over Joseph’s work.
Conclusion: Employer’s Own Words Prove Employee-Like Control
Verdant Strategies cannot now argue that Joseph was an independent business entity while also having treated them as an in-house resource. These statements, coupled with the strict oversight, mandatory workflows, and employee-like expectations, provide further evidence that Joseph was misclassified, wrongfully terminated, and subject to bad-faith employer practices.
