Employer’s Guide to Worker Classification 

Last year, the U.S. Department of Labor recovered more than $273 million in back wages and damages for workers nationwide: proof that classification mistakes are both common and costly. 

At the same time, the federal baseline is shifting: the DOL’s “economic realities” approach, effective March 11, 2024, contrasts with the IRS’s common‑law “control” test built around three categories of evidence (behavioral, financial, and relationship). 

Why does this matter? Because employers today operate across overlapping frameworks—FLSA (wage/hour), IRS (employment taxes), NLRA (organizing rights), and state ABC tests—that don’t always point to the same answer. Adding to the complexity, DOL has instructed WHD investigators not to apply the 2024 rule’s analysis in current enforcement while reviews continue, even though the rule remains relevant in private litigation. 

The result is a classification environment where the right structure can unlock flexibility and scaling, while the wrong one can invite audits, back pay, liquidated damages, and state penalties. This guide demystifies the federal baseline, contrasts it with the IRS and NLRB standards, and highlights tough state ABC regimes—so you can align roles, documentation, and contracts with confidence. 

Mastering worker classification now helps you prevent disputes before they start and protect your payroll, taxes, and operations as rules evolve. 

The 2024 FLSA Economic Realities Test (Six Factors) 

The DOL’s independent‑contractor rule took effect on March 11, 2024, resetting the federal baseline for who is covered by the FLSA. It evaluates economic dependence through six factors rather than bright‑line rules. 

At its core, the question is whether a worker is economically dependent on the hiring entity for work. The framework looks holistically at: opportunity for profit or loss; investments by the worker and the company; the relationship’s permanence; the nature and degree of control; whether the work is integral to the business; and the worker’s skill and initiative. No single factor is dispositive; the totality of the circumstances governs. 

To put this into practice, align documentation to each factor. Capture how workers set prices or incur unreimbursed costs (profit or loss), what tools or systems they buy versus what you provide (investments), and how projects start and end (permanence). On control, remember that actions taken solely to meet legal or safety obligations are not indicative of control, while company‑created policies that dictate how work is performed can weigh toward employee status. 

One nuance: while the rule supplies the federal wage‑and‑hour baseline, enforcement posture is in flux. As of May 1, 2025, WHD investigators will no longer apply the 2024 analysis in agency investigations, though the rule remains relevant in private litigation. 

Applied correctly, the economic‑realities framework helps teams make consistent, defensible calls that hold up across audits, disputes, and growth. 

Key Takeaways: 

  • Focus on economic dependence: document how workers realize profit or loss, their investments, and whether their services sit at the core of your business. 
  • Treat control with care: compliance‑only requirements are not control, but company‑imposed methods and monitoring can be. 
  • Use a holistic lens: no single factor decides the outcome, so keep evidence across the relationship aligned and consistent. 

IRS Common‑Law Control and the NLRB Standard 

When you need a definitive tax ruling, an IRS worker‑status determination can take at least 6 months—hardly agile if you’re scaling a team. Meanwhile, the IRS sorts evidence of control into three categories that look beyond titles or contracts. 

The IRS uses common‑law “right‑to‑control” principles: who directs what work is done and how it’s done, evaluated across behavioral, financial, and relationship factors. By contrast, the NLRB applies a holistic common‑law agency test under the NLRA; in Atlanta Opera, the Board reaffirmed that entrepreneurial opportunity is just one consideration, not the driving force. The DOL’s FLSA rule remains a separate “economic realities” inquiry focused on wage‑and‑hour coverage, so outcomes can legitimately diverge across agencies. 

To operationalize the IRS framework, collect evidence that maps to the three buckets. On behavioral control, if your performance reviews or metrics become an evaluation system measuring the details of how tasks are performed, you’re trending toward employee status. Financially, fixed wages (vs. project fees) and reimbursed expenses suggest employment; on relationship, indefinite engagements and core‑business work often do too. 

Two practical nuances matter. First, SS‑8 decisions address status for federal employment taxes and withholding—not FLSA or NLRA rights. Second, under the NLRA, independent contractors are excluded from the Act, so missteps risk losing or triggering organizing protections depending on how roles are structured. 

The upshot: apply the right test to the right risk—IRS for taxes, NLRB for organizing rights, DOL for wage‑and‑hour—and document facts that fit each framework from day one. 

Key Takeaways: 

  • IRS focuses on control across behavioral, financial, and relationship factors; build your files to those three buckets, not just to job titles. 
  • The NLRB’s common‑law test is holistic; “entrepreneurial opportunity” helps but doesn’t decide status on its own. 
  • SS‑8 resolves federal tax status only; DOL and NLRB outcomes can differ, so align documentation and contracts to each agency’s lens. 

State ABC Tests and Enforcement: Lessons from CA, NJ, and MA 

In a single enforcement stroke, Massachusetts forced Uber and Lyft to pay $175 million—a reminder that ABC regimes can impose enormous liabilities even without changing formal classification. 

ABC tests start from a presumption of employment, but the “B” prong is where outcomes diverge most. In Massachusetts (and generally California), the service must be performed outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business—tough for roles tied to your core offering. New Jersey’s B prong is more flexible: the work can be outside the usual course or performed outside all places of business, giving some field‑based roles a viable path. 

Carve‑outs also reshape the map. In California, voter‑approved exemptions can narrow ABC coverage: app‑based drivers remain contractors after Prop 22 upheld, even as wage‑and‑benefit floors apply. The lesson for multistate teams: classification hinges not just on the ABC text, but also on state‑specific exceptions and sector rules. 

Enforcement muscle matters as much as doctrine. New Jersey’s labor department has wielded stop‑work powers aggressively, tallying 201 stop‑work orders since 2019—often with joint liability and per‑worker penalties that hit primes and subs alike. 

The takeaway: design your workforce strategy state‑by‑state, pressure‑testing roles against each B prong, scanning for carve‑outs, and modeling enforcement exposure before you launch. 

Key Takeaways: 

  • ABC tests presume employment; the decisive “B” prong is stricter in MA/CA than NJ, changing how core‑business roles fare. 
  • Carve‑outs can override defaults—California’s Prop 22 shows how sector‑specific exemptions rewrite classification in practice. 
  • Enforcement is real: stop‑work orders, joint liability, and per‑worker penalties mean misclassification risk compounds quickly across your supply chain. 

The Employer’s Compliance Playbook: Documentation, SS‑8, and Cost Scenarios 

If you’re unsure about a worker’s status, waiting isn’t a strategy: an IRS determination via Form SS‑8 can take at least 6 months—longer than most hiring plans can tolerate. 

Treat classification like a living file, not a checkbox. Maintain contemporaneous evidence of how work is directed, paid, and scoped, and keep core employment tax records for 4 years. Focus your documentation on how instructions are given, how workers are compensated, who provides tools and bears unreimbursed costs, and what the parties agreed to (while remembering labels alone won’t decide status). 

A practical build-out looks like this: define the role and its deliverables up front; capture evidence that shows how work is performed and paid (onboarding questionnaires, SOWs, invoices, expense policies); and calendar decision points. If doubt persists, consider an SS‑8 filing for a federal tax status ruling, or use a prospective pathway like the IRS’s voluntary reclassification program to fix course going forward. 

Here’s why speed and recordkeeping matter: if contractors are reclassified and you didn’t issue 1099s, federal §3509(b) can apply withholding at 3.0% and 40% of the employee FICA rate—and the employer still owes the full employer FICA plus FUTA. On the wage‑and‑hour side, repeated or willful federal minimum wage/overtime violations can draw $2,515 per‑violation civil penalties, even before private litigation risk is considered. 

Use this playbook to shorten decision cycles, preserve your best evidence, and model costs early—so reclassification never becomes a surprise line item. 

Key Takeaways: 

  • Build a classification file from day one: document who directs the work, how pay is structured, who provides tools, and what the contract actually governs. 
  • Plan your escalation path: SS‑8 offers a federal tax determination, while prospective reclassification programs can mitigate future exposure. 
  • Model costs ahead of time: §3509(b) rates, the employer’s FICA/FUTA obligations, and federal civil penalties can stack quickly without timely controls. 

Close the Classification Loop with Compliant, Global Payroll 

You’ve built a defensible classification framework—now operationalize it with payroll that matches the rules you just clarified. Bitwage delivers W-2–compliant payroll alongside same-day payments in cryptocurrency, stablecoins, or local currency, plus crypto‑powered benefits, invoice management, expense tracking, and automated accounting. With a spotless 10-year, zero-breach security record and over $400 million processed for 90,000+ workers at 4,500+ companies across nearly 200 countries, Bitwage helps you pay employees and contractors correctly, document everything, and stay audit-ready as regulations evolve. 

Turn policy into practice without slowing down hiring or cash flow. Reduce FX and transfer costs, route funds the way each worker prefers, and keep clean, compliant records across jurisdictions. Ready to align classification with execution and start saving on operations? Signup for Crypto Payroll today! Or schedule a demo to see how fast you can stand up a global, compliant payroll that scales.