Case to read: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2013/a4679-11.html

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reasons that AAA had no control over the independent contractor's work and thus Pershad was an employee of Five Star, but Five Star (and by extension, Pershad) were independent contractors to AAA.

This type of arrangement is not uncommon.Neither are situations where trucking companies (among others) employ individuals who are designated as independent contractors but are trained by the company and have a manual of regulations provided to them which, in essence, controls where they drive, how they drive, how long are the drivers' work breaks, and who can ride in the cab of the truck.Additionally, drivers often wear a company uniform.The artifice of calling someone an independent contractor when the driver actually is not, is no more than an effort to avoid liability for the person's actions on the job and certain regulatory (unemployment insurance; workers compensation, etc.) and tax considerations.Consequently, the situations must be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis to discern the actual status of the individual.

Do you agree with the courts reasoning? Why?