COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: C h i e f J u d g e D e c k e r

, J u d g e s B e a l e s a n d F u l t o n

Argued b y t e l e c o n f

e r e n c e

C A R E E R D E V E L O P M E N T C E N T E R

, I N C

. MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY

v. Re cord No. 0 4 2 0

- 2 1

- 2 J U D G E R A N D O L P H A

. B E A L E S

DECEMBER 14, 2021

V I R G I N I A E M P L O Y M E N T C O M M I S S I O N

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T H E C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D

W i l l i a m R

. M a

r c h a n t , Judge

J a m e s H

. S h o e m a

k e r

, J r

. ( P a t t e n

, W o r n o m

, H a t t e n & D i a m o n s t e i n

, L

. C

. , o n b r i e f

s )

, for appellant.

J o s h u a E

. L a w s

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ( M a

r k R

. H e r r i n g

, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; D o n a

l d D

. A n d e r s o n

, D e p u t y A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ;

H e a th e r H a y s L o c k e r m a n

, S e n i o r A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l and

Chief

, o n b r i e f )

, for appellee.

U p o n r e v i e w o f a r u l i n g o f the V i r g i n i a Employment C o m m i s s i o n p u r s u a n t t o C o d e

§ 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0

, t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f t h e C i t y o f R i c h m o n d a f f i r m e d t h e a g e n c y ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t

c l a i m a n t C h r i s t o p h e r W a l k e r w a s a n e m p l o y e e o f C a r e e r D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r

, I n c

. ( “ C D C ” ) a n d

n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r

. C D C n o w a p p e a l s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t t o t h i s C o u r t

.

I. B A C K G R O U N D

C D C i s a V i r g i n i a c o r

p o r a t i o n o p e r a t e d b y a l o c a l c h a p t e r o f th e U n i t e d S t e e l w o r k e r s o f

A m e r i c a l a

b o r u n i o n th a t r e p r e s e n t s w o r k e r s a t a G o o d y e a

r manufacturing c o mp l e x i n D a n v i l l e

,

V i r g i n i a

. C D C e x i s t s t o p r o v i d e c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t s e r v i c e s t o G o o d y e a r ’ s h o u r l y w o r

k e r s a s a

b e n e f i t o f th e i r u n i o n a f

f i l i a t i o n

. A m o n g t

h e s e r v i c e s i t p r o v i d e s

, C D C o f f e r s c l a s s e s i n v a

r i o u s

s u b j e c t s g e a r e d t o w a r d th e e d u c a t i o n a l a n d v o c a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f th e u n i o n m e m b e r s

. C D C

* Pursuant to Code § 1 7.1

- 413, this opinion is not design ated for publ icatio n

. UNPUBLISHED- 2

-

h a s h i s t o r i c a l l y o f f e r e d c l a s s e s i n a w i d e r a n g e o f s u b j e c t s

, i n c l u d i n g

, f

o r e x a mp l e

, M i c r o s o f

t E x c e l

,

s e l f

- d e f e n s e

, A m e r i c a n S i g n L a n g u a g e

, b a l l r o o m d a n c i n g

, a n d w e l d i n g

.

C h r i s t o p h e r W a l k e r i s a w e l d i n g i n s t r u c t o r

. W a l k e r i n i t i a l l y t a

u g h t w e l d i n g c l a s s e s a t C D C

p u r s u a n t t o a n a s s i g n m e n t o f a c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n C D C a n d G r e e n W o o d

, I n c

. I n A p r i l 2 0 1 7

, C D C

h i r e d W a l k e r d i r e c t

l y

. T h e y e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t

, t i t l e d “ C a r e e r D evelopment C e n t e r

I n s t r u c t i o n A g r e e m e n t

, ” w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h a t W a l ke r w o u l d t e a c h w e l d i n g a n d a d v a n c e d w e l d i n g

c o u r s e s a t C D C ’ s o f

f i c e f r o m A p r i l t o J u l y 2 0 1 7

.

T h e written a g r e e m e n t s e t f o r t h th e r i g h t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t

i e s o f e a c h p a

r t y

. I t r e q u i r e d

W a l k e r t o d e s i g n h i s c o u r s e s

, t o c r e a t e a s y l l a b u s p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t c l a s s s e s s i o n

, a n d t o c o l l e c t

e v a l u a t i o n s a n d s u b m i t t

h e m t o C D C a t th e e n d o f t h e c o u r s e

. I t r e q u i r e d C D C t o s c h e d u l e th e

c l a s s e s

, t o d e t e r m i n e th e c o u r s e p a r t i c i p a n t s / s t u d e n t s

, t o s u p p l y t

h e t e x t b o o k ( s ) / i n s t r u c t i o n a l

m a t e r i a l ( s ) t o b e u s e d

, t o f a c i l i t a t e n e c e s s a

r y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i th s t

u d e n t s

, t o p r o v i d e e v a l u a t i o n

f o r m s t o s tu d e n t s

, a n d t o p r o v i d e Walker w i th a s u m m a r y o f e v a l u a

t i o n r e s u l t s

. T h e a g r e e m e n t a l s o

p r o v i d e d th a

t “ [ n ] e i t h e r p a r t y m a y a s s i g n a n y o f i t s r i g h t s o r o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r th i s A g r e e m e n t

w i th o u t th e p r

i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f th e o th e r p a r t y

. ” R e g a r d i n g t e r m i n a t

i o n

, t h e a g r e e m e n t

p r o v i d e d

, “ T h i s a g r e e m e n t m a y b e c a n c e l e d b y e i t h e r p a r t y u p o n t h i r

t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s w r i t t e n n o t

i c e f o r

a n y r e a s o n o r f

o r n o r e a s o n

. ” I t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t C D C “ m a y c a n c e l th i s a g r e e m e n t u p o n s e v e n ( 7 )

d a y s w r i t t e n n o t i c e t o t

h e E d u c a t i o n P r o v i d e r d u e t o l o w e n r o l l m e n t

, o r E d u c a t i o n P r o v i d e r ’ s

m i s c o n d u c t o r p o o r p e r f

o r m a n c e

. ” F i n a

l l y

, th e a g r e e m e n t a l l o w e d W a l k e r t o c h o o s e w h e th e r h e

w o u l d r e c e i v e a l u m

p s u m f o r h i s w o r k o r e a r n a n h o u r l y w a g e

. W a

l k e r e l e c t e d t o b e p a

i d a t th e

h o u r l y r a t e

. I n a d d i t

i o n t o t h e h o u r l y w a g e

, C D C p a i d W a l k e r $ 1 6 0 f

o r d e s i g n i n g th e c o u r s e a n d

r e i m b u r s e d h i m $ 4 0 p e r d a y f

o r h i s t r a v e l l i n g e x p e n s e s

. T h e p a

r t i e s p e r f o r m e d t h e c o n t

r a c t

, and

W a l k e r ’ s w e l d i n g c o u r s e s c o n c l u d e d a t t h e e n d o f J u l y 2 0 1 7

.- 3

-

T h e m a t t e r n o w b e f

o r e u s b e g a n w h e n W a

l k e r f i l e d a c l a i m f

o r u n e m p l o y m e n t b e n e f

i t s w i t h

th e V i r g i n i a E m

p l o y m e n t C o m m i s s i o n ( “ V E C ” ) i n N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 7

. I n h i s c l a i m f

o r

u n e m p l o y m e n t b e n e f

i t s

, W a l k e r l i s t e d C D C a s h i s m o s t r e c e n t e m p l o y e r a n d s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d

w o r k e d a s a w e l d i n g i n s t

r u c t o r f o r C D C u n t i l J u l y 2 0 1 7

. U p o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n

, V E C d e t e r m i n e d t

h a t

C D C h a d n o t r e p o r

t e d W a l k e r ’ s w a g e s t o V E C

. A r e q u e s t t o r e c o n s i d e r W a l k e r ’ s e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r

u n e m p l o y m e n t c o mp e n s a t i o n w a s r e f e r r e d t o a F i e l d T a x R e p r e s e n t a t i v e w h o s u b s e q u e n t

l y f o u n d

th a t W a l k e r w a s a n e m

p l o y e e o f C D C a n d t

h a t C D C h a d e r

r o n e o u s l y c l a s s i f

i e d W a l k e r a s a n

inde pendent c o n t

r a c t o r

. C o n s e q u e n t

l y

, th e F i e l d T a x R e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C D C w a s

liab l e for p a s t

- d u e payroll tax es tha t CDC should have been paying for its employees w h o h a d

b e e n m i s r e p o r t e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s

. CDC requested a hearing p u r s u a n t t o Code

§ 60.2

- 50 0 to contest its liability be fore VEC. 1

V E C h e l d th e r e q u e s t e d h e a r i n g a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y i s s u e d a n o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h i t s d e c i s i o n

o n O c t o b e r 2 1

, 2 0 1 9

. T h e o r d e r d e t a i l e d V E C ’ s f

i n d i n g s o f f

a c t o n e a c h o f t

h e t w e n t y f

a c t o r s

c o mp r i s i n g th e t w e n t y

- f

a c t o r t e s t f

r o m I R S R e v e n u e R u l i n g 8 7

- 4 1

. S e e C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 2 1 2 ( C )

. 2

B a s e d o n i t s a

p p l i c a t i o n o f th e t w e n t y

- f

a c t o r t e s t

, VEC f

o u n d that Walker was an employee

o f C D C rather than an independent con tractor

. S p e c i f i c a l l y

, V E C f

o u n d t h a t f

o u r t e e n o f t h e

t w e n t y f a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n f

a v o r o f a n e m p l o y e e s t a t u s

, w h i l e f o u r o f t h e f

a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n f

a v o r

1 Code § 60.2

- 5 00 p r o v i d e s t h a t V E C “ m a y

, u p o n i t s o w n m o t i o n o r u p o n a p p l i c a t i o n o f

a n e m p l o y i n g u n i t

. . . make findings of fact, a nd on that basis, determ ine whether:

. . . [ s ] ervice s

performed fo r or in connection with the b usine ss of an employing u nit constitute emp loyme nt for

su ch employ i ng unit [

. ] ” C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0 ( A ) ( 2 )

.

2 The appl icable ve rs ion of Code § 60.2

- 212 was enacted in 2005. C ode § 60.2

- 212 was

amended effective July 1, 20 20, and again effective J uly 1, 202 1

. See 20 20 V a. Act s ch. 1261 ;

2021 Va. Acts ch . 448. U nl e ss spe c ifi cally stated otherwise , a ll subsequen t referenc es to Code

§ 60.2

- 212 (C) are to the version that was in eff ect at the time of the October 21, 2019 VEC

d eci sion that is the subjec t of t his a ppeal.- 4

-

o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s

, a n d t w o o f t h e f a c t o r s w e r e i n c o n c l u s i v e

. F o r e x a m p l e

, V E C

f o u n d t h a t Factor 3 (whether the worker ’ s services are inte grated int o the employer’s business

m o d e l ) favored emplo yment because CD C relied on Walker’s e xpertise and the exp erti se of

other instructors to a c c o m p l i s h i t s m i s s i o n of offering c a r e e r development courses to u n i o n

members

. V E C f

o u n d t h a t Factor 4 (whethe r the worker render s se rvices personally ) a l s o

favored emp loymen t because Walker taught the c lasses personally an d

, p er the a g r e e m e n t

,

Walker needed CDC’s written consent before he c o u l d a s s i g n t h e c o n t r a c t t o s o m e o n e e l s e

. I n

a d d i t i o n

, Factor 7 (whether the worker has se t hours of work) favore d emplo yment because

Wa lker ha d no authority to alt er the hours of his wo rk a s C D C had f u l l control over the time a n d

day of the classes. F u r t h e r m o r e

, V E C d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Factor 13 (whether the employer pays for

business and/or travel expense s) favored em pl oyment because CDC paid Walke r $160 t o design

the c ou rse as well as $40 “to defray his travel expenses for each day he taught

. ” Finally, VEC

found that CDC could cancel the a greement “ for instructor misconduct, sub standard performance

or low enrollme n t ” and that Walker could canc el the agreement without i ncurring any liabil i ty

,

meaning that Factor 19 (whether the employer has a right to discharge the worker) and Factor 20

(whether the worker has a right to terminate the employment) both “strongly f av o r [ed]

e mployment.”

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, V E C f o u n d t h a t F a c t o r s 1 a n d 2 ( i n s t r u c t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g

, r e s p e c t i v e l y )

w e i g h e d “ h e a v i l y i n f

a v o r o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s ” because Walker was responsible for

training himself to be prepared to teach his st u dents a s CDC did not ins truct or train Walker

.

V E C f o u n d t h a t C D C “ engaged th e claimant ’ s services with the understanding that he was a

competent welding instructor as evidenced by his recent service as an employee of GreenWood

Inc.

, ” a n d t h a t “ [ t ] here i s no ev i dence that he or other s were provided with any in struction or

traini n g w ith respect to teaching participants in their respective classes. ” In addition, V E C- 5

-

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Factor 8 (whether the employment is full

- time) and Factor 11 (whether the

worker submits oral o r writt en reports) favored ind epend en t contractor status be c ause Walker did

not work full

- time and did not have to submit a ny oral o r written reports to CDC. VEC also

found that Factor 9 (doing work on company premises) and Factor 12 (payme nt by hour, we ek

,

or month) were inconclusiv e.

G i v e n i t s f

i n d i n g s o n e a c h o f t h e t w e n t y f a c t o r s

, V E C r u l e d t h a t C D C h a d f a i l e d t o c a r r y

i t s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t W a l k e r w a s n o t a n e m p l o y e e u n d e r C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 2 1 2 ( C )

. VEC t h u s

a f f i r m e d t h e F i e l d T a x R e p r e s e n t a t i v e ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f C D C ’ s t a x l i a b i l i t y a n d r u l e d t h a t C D C

“ mus t r e port remuneration paid to M r

. Walke r and any other misclassified workers as wages

during the years of 2016, 2017 and 2018, a nd remit any FUTA/SUTA payroll tax, penalties and

intere s t to the Com mission that may be due and owing. ”

C D C p e t i t i o n e d f

o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i n t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f t h e C i t y o f R i c h m o n d p u r s u a n t

t o C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0 ( C )

. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g a n d

, a f t e r h e a r i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s o f

c o u n s e l

, t h e circuit c o u r t j u d g e r u l e d f r o m t h e b e n c h :

[ T ] here a r e facts t o s u pport these findin g s, and I cannot say that it is

something that necessarily I would come to a different conclusion in

going through them.

. . . So, again, if I was the initial trier of fact, I

might

– I might find differ ently in s ome of the s e factors. But I can ’ t

say

. . . r eviewing the record and the evidence that was presented tha t

those fi ndings of facts are in any way not supported by eviden ce or

that they necessarily require a different conclusion

.

T h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a n o r d e r r u l i n g

, “ t h e C o u r t f i n d s there is no fraud pled or

found, that there is sufficient evidence in the Record to sup port the Commission ’ s findin gs, [ a n d ]

that there is no error of law in the Commission ’ s Decision [

. ] ” C o n s e q u e n tl y

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t

a f f i r m e d V E C ’ s d e c i s i o n

. T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

.- 6

- I I

. A N A L Y S I S

C D C c o n t e n d s o n a

p p e a l t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r

t “ erred in finding tha t there is sufficient

evidence in the Record to support the Virginia Employment Commission’ s findi ngs that

C hri stopher Walker was an e mployee a nd not a n indep e ndent contractor ” a n d a l s o “ e r r e d i n

f i n d i n g that t here was no error of law in the Virginia Employment Commission’s de cision

fi nding that Christopher Wal ker was an emp loyee and not an inde pendent contracto r. ”

A

. S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w

O n a p p e a l o f V E C ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f e m p l o y m e n t u n d e r t h e V i r g i n i a U n e m p l o y m e n t

C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t ( t h e “ A c t ” )

, C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0 ( C ) significantly n a rr o w s t h e s c o p e o f j u d i c i a l

r e v i e w : “ In any ju dicial pr o ce edings und er this article, the Commis sion ’ s findi ng s of facts, if

supp o rted b y the evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive , and the j urisdiction of

the court shall be confine d to questions of law

. ” ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h u s

, “ [ u ] nless the

Commission ’ s factu al finding s are errone ous, our ju risdiction is confin e d to q u estions of law. ”

V a

. Emp. Comm ’ n v. Porter

- Blaine Corp. , 27 Va . App. 153, 162

- 63 (1998)

. T he Supreme Court

has stated

, “What constitutes an employee is a quest ion of law ; but, wheth er the facts brin g a

person w ithin the law’ s designation, is usual ly a q u estion of fact.” Intermodal Servs., Inc. v.

Smith , 234 Va. 596 , 600 ( 1988) (quotin g Bake r v. Nussman

, 152 Va . 293, 298 (1929)).

M o r e o v e r

, “ [ t ] he worker’s statu s ‘must be determined from th e facts of the particular cas e

. . . . ’”

I d

. ( quoting Br ow n v. F o x

, 189 Va. 509, 516 (1949)).

B

. A p p l i c a b l e L a w

C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 2 1 2 ( A ) ( 2 ) d e f i n e s “ E m p l o y m e n t ” a s “ [ a ] n y service, of w hatever nature,

performed by an individual for any employing uni t, for remu n eration or u nder any contract of

hi re

, written or oral [

. ] ” F u r t h e r m o r e

,

[ s ] e r v i c e s performed by an individual for remuneration shall be

deemed to be em

ployment subject to this ti tl e unless the- 7

- Commission determines that such individual is not an employee

f or purp oses of the Federal Insura nc e C ontributions Act a nd the

F ederal Une mploymen t Tax Act, based upon an application of the

20 factors set forth in I nternal Revenue Service Rev en ue Ruling

87

- 41, issued pursuant to 26 C.F.R. 31.3306(i)

- 1 and 26 C.F.R.

31

. 3121(d)

- 1.

Co de § 60.2

- 212 ( C ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. “ The VE C has the initial burden of proving that the

services are performed by individuals for remuner ation; however, once the VEC has met its

burden, the burden s hifts to the putative employe r to prove , by a prepo nderanc e of the evidence

,

that it qualifies for an exem p tion under Code § 6 0.2

- 212(C). ” Yard Bird, Inc. v. V a

. Emp.

Comm ’ n , 28 Va. App. 21 5, 222

- 23 (1998) ; s e e a l s o P o r t e r

- B l a i n e C o rp

. , 2 7 V a

. A p p

. a t 1 6 2

.

I n a d d i t i o n

, o u r a

p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s sta tu t ory f r a m e w o r k i s g u i d e d b y t

h e S u p r e m e C o u r

t ’ s

d i r e c t i o n th a t

[ t ] he Act is to be liberally construed to effect it s beneficent

purpose and in bor derline cases “employment ” sh ould be found to

exist. Exemptions i n the Act should be stri ctly construed a gains t

the al leged employer, the ru le requir ing liberal con structi o n in

favor of the taxpayer not being applicable. As defined in the Act,

the te rm “ employment” s hould be acc orde d a broader and more

inclusive meaning than in the common

- law context of mas t er an d

s ervan t.

V a

. Emp

. Comm ’ n v. A .I.M. Corp.

, 2 25 Va. 3 38, 3 46 (1983) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

.

C

. V E C ’ s F i n d i n g o f “ E m p l o y m e n t ” P u r s u a n t t o t h e Twenty

- F a c t o r T e s t

I t i s u n d i s p u t e d i n t h i s c a s e t h a t W a l k e r p e r f o r m e d s e r v i c e s f

o r C D C f o r r e m u n e r a t i o n

.

C D C t h e r e f

o r e b o r e t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t W a l k e r w a s “ not an emplo y ee fo r purposes of the

Federal Ins urance Contributions Act and the Federal Une mployment Tax Act, based upon an- 8

-

application of th e 20 factors set forth in Internal Revenue Service Revenue Ru ling 87

- 41

. ” 3

C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 2 1 2 ( C ) ; Y a r d B i r d

, 2 8 V a

. A p p

. a t 2 2 2

- 2 3

.

V E C f o u n d t h a t t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f t h e f

a c t o r s c o m p r i s i n g t h e t w e n t y

- f a c t o r

t e s t w e i g h i n f

a v o r o f C h r i s t o p h e r W a l k e r ’ s h a v i n g a n e m p l o y e e s t a t u s

. V E C f o u n d t h a t F a c t o r s

3 t h r o u g h 7

, 1 0

, a n d 1 3 t h r o u g h 2 0 f a v o r f i n d i n g W a l k e r t o b e a n e m p l o y e e w h i l e F a c t o r s 1

, 2

, 8

,

a n d 1 1 f a v o r f i n d i n g W a l k e r t o b e a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r

. V E C a l s o f o u n d F a c t o r s 9 a n d 1 2

t o b e i n c o n c l u s i v e

.

I n a s s e s s i n g t h o s e t w e n t y f a c t o r s

, V E C f

o u n d t h a t F a c t o r 3 “ w e i g h [ e d ] h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f

e m p l o y m e n t ” b e c a u s e W a l k e r ’ s s e r v i c e s a n d t h e s e r v i c e s o f o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s w e r e c r i t i c a l t o

C D C ’ s a b i l i t y “ t o m e e t i t s g o a l o f o f f e r i n g c o u r s e s d e s i g n e d t o e n h a n c e t h e b a s i c s k i l l s a n d

p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f i t s m e m b e r s ”

– a n d b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e s h o r t d u r a t i o n a n d w i d e v a r i e t y o f

t h e c l a s s e s strengthens t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h a v i n g i n s t r u c t o r s

. ” V E C f u r t h e r f o u n d t h a t t h e

a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n W a l k e r a n d C D C b a r r e d a n y a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r

w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y

, w h i c h s i m i l a r l y w e i g h e d i n f a v o r o f e m p l o y e e s t a t u s

, g i v e n

t h a t W a l k e r a n d o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s w e r e r e q u i r e d t o r e n d e r their s e r v i c e s p e r s o n a l l y

.

I n a d d i t i o n

, V E C f

o u n d n o e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u g g e s t t h a t W a l k e r h a d t h e

authority to alter his hours of work or t o c hoose t h e t i m e s o f h i s c l a s s e s

– a n d

, i n f a c t

, t h e

a g r e e m e n t s p e c i f

i c a l l y t a s k e d C D C w i t h schedu l i n g c l a s s e s

– w h i c h m e a n t t h a t F a c t o r 7 p o i n t e d

t o w a r d e m p l o y e e s t a t u s r a t h e r t h a n independent c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s

. Factor 13 a l s o favored

employ e e s t a t u s r a t h e r t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s because CDC paid Walker ’ s b u s i n e s s

a n d t r a v e l e x p e n s e s b y p a y i n g h i m $160 t o design the cou rse p l u s $40 “to defray his travel

3 T he applic able version of Code § 6 0.2

- 212 (C) pla inl y re qui re d VEC to apply the

t w ent y

- f a c tor test in makin g a determ ination regarding emplo yment with res pect to Walke r

. Therefore, o ur review in this matter is confined to the agency ’ s application of the t wenty

- factor

test from IRS Revenue Ruling 8 7

- 41, a s that tes t w as incorporated b y sta tu te in to Vir gin ia law

. S ee Cod e § 60.2

- 212 (C )

.- 9

-

expenses for each day he taught [

. ] ” V E C f o u n d t h a t C D C “ had the right to terminate the

A gree m ent wit h 7 day s ’ n o ti ce for in structor misconduct, substandard p erformance or low

enrollment

, ” a n d “ [ a ] side from the loss of continued compensation, the claimant and the other

instructors would not incur any liability for cancelling their contracts wi th [ C D C ] wit h 30 da ys ’

w ri tt en noti ce. ” T h i s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n w a s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t

b e t w e e n C D C a n d W a l k e r

, w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t i t c o u l d “ b e c a n c e l e d b y e i t h e r p a r t y

u p o n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s w r i t t e n n o t

i c e f o r a n y r e a s o n o r f

o r n o r e a s o n ” a n d t h a

t b o t h p a r t i e s w o u l d

“ hold harmless each othe r for an y direct or indirect damages or costs incurred ” a s a r e s u l t o f s u c h

t e r m i n a t i o n

.

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, a s n o t e d s u p r a

, V E C c o n c l u d e d t h a t s o m e o f t h e f a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n

f a v o r o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s

. F o r i n s t a n c e

, CDC di d not ins truct or train Walker ( g i v e n

t h a t C D C h a d n o k n o w l e d g e o f w e l d i n g o r h o w t o t e a c h w e l d i n g )

, a n d W a l k e r w a s t h e r e f o r e

r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r t r a i n i n g h i m s e l f t o b e p r e p a r e d t o t e a c h h i s s t u d e n t s

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, F a c t o r s 1

a n d 2 w e i g h e d “ h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u s

. ” In addition, Factor 8 and

Fac tor 11 favored independent contractor status because Walker did not work full

- time and did

not have to submit a ny oral o r written reports to C DC.

C o n s e q u e n t l y

, VE C foun d t hat most o f the t w e n t y facto rs weighed in favor of employee

status , but some of the factors we ig hed in favor of independent contractor status, and others of

the factors did not clea rly p o i n t i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n

. W e c a n n o t s a y t h a t V E C ’ s f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t o n

t h o s e t w e n t y f

a c t o r s a r e u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t i n v o l v e

a n y a l l e g a t i o n o f f

r a u d

. T h u s

, V E C ’ s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s a r e c o n c l u s i v e

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, w e t h i n k t h e

c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r

r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t “ t h e r e i s n o fra ud ple d or found , tha t ther e is sufficient

evidence in the Record to support the Commission ’ s findings, [ and ] that there is no error of law

i n the Commission’s Decision [

. ] ” T h e r e f o r e

, w e h o l d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t e rr i n- 10

-

a f f i r m i n g V E C ’ s j u d g m e n t t h a t W a l k e r w a s a n e m p l o y e e o f C D C a n d n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t

c o n t r a c t o r

. S e e C o d e § § 6 0

. 2

- 2 1 2 ; 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0

.

I I I

. C O N C L U S I O N

I n s h o r t

, th e c i r c u i t c o u r

t d i d n o t e r

r i n u p h o l d i n g V E C ’ s d e c i s i o n th a t W a l k e r w a s a n

e m p l o y e e o f C D C a n d n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r

. W h e th e r a p a

r t i c u l a r w o r k e r i s a n e m p l o y e e

o r a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t

r a c t o r i s a h e a v i l y f

a c t

- d e p e n d e n t q u e s t

i o n

. I n th i s c a s e

, t h a t q u e s t i o n w a s

s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d t o b e a

n s w e r e d b y a n a

p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t w e n t y f

a c t o r s s e t f

o r th i n I R S R e v e n u e

R u l i n g 8 7

- 4 1

. V E C m a d e f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s o n e a c h o f t h e t w e n t y f a c t o r s a n d f

o u n d th a t th e

o v e r w h e l m i n g m ajority o f t h o s e f a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n f

a v o r o f e mp l o y e e s t a

tu s w h i l e o n l y f

o u r o f t h e

f a c t o r s w e i g h e d i n f

a v o r o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t

r a c t o r s t a tu s a n d o n l y t w o o f th e f a c t o r s w e r e

i n c o n c l u s i v e

. V E C ’ s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s o n t

h e t w e n t y

- f

a c t o r t e s t a

r e i n d e e d b a s e d o n e v i d e n c e i n t h e

r e c o r d

, a n d th e r e i s n o a l l e g a t i o n o f f r a u d i n t h i s c a s e

. T h o s e f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s a r e th e r e f o r e

c o n c l u s i v e i n t

h i s a p p e a l a c c o r d i n g t o t

h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f C o d e § 6 0

. 2

- 5 0 0 ( C )

. T h u s

, w e a r e

l i m i t e d t o d e c i d i n g w h e t

h e r V E C e r

r e d a s a m a t

t e r o f l a w i n f

i n d i n g th a t W a

l k e r w a s a n e m

p l o y e e

a n d n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r

, a n d

, f

o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d s u

p r a

, w e d o n o t f

i n d t h a t V E C e r

r e d

.

C o n s e q u e n t

l y

, w e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t u p h o l d i n g V E C ’ s d e c i s i o n

.

A f f i r m e d

.