A Labor Day Lesson: Employees vs. Independent Contractors

When most people think of Labor Day, they picture a cookout, a parade, or maybe the unofficial end of summer. But at its core, Labor Day honors the American worker. In legal terms, it gives us the perfect moment to revisit one of the most frequently tested distinctions on the bar exam: the difference between employees and independent contractors.

This distinction isn’t just vocabulary. On the bar exam, the classification often determines whether a principal is vicariously liable for a tort. That is why examinees should always pause when a fact pattern involves an accident and a worker: is this person an employee or an independent contractor? The answer changes everything.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Why the Distinction Matters

An employee brings liability with them. If an employee commits a tort within the scope of employment, the employer is liable under respondeat superior. Independent contractors, on the other hand, generally do not impose that kind of liability on the hiring party. Unless an exception applies, a principal is not responsible for their torts. The difference is simple but powerful, and it is tested again and again.

The Control Test

The classic way to distinguish between the two is to ask: who controls how the work is done? If the principal dictates the means and methods—the hours, the tools, the supervision, the day-to-day details—then the worker looks like an employee. If the worker instead controls the process and is hired only to deliver a finished result, then the worker looks more like an independent contractor.

Fact patterns often provide subtle clues. A worker who uses their own tools, sets their own schedule, and is paid by the job is more likely to be an independent contractor. By contrast, a long-term relationship, payment by the hour, and work that is part of the regular business of the employer all suggest employee status. On the bar exam, those details are not just filler—they are the answer.

Vicarious Liability Rules

Once you know the classification, the liability analysis becomes clearer. For employees, an employer is liable for torts committed within the scope of employment. That scope is broad. It includes acts the employee is employed to perform, occurring within the time and space of employment, and motivated, at least in part, by a desire to serve the employer. The classic distinction between a detour and a frolic helps frame the question: a slight deviation from duties will still keep liability with the employer, while a substantial departure cuts off liability.

For independent contractors, the general rule is that the hiring party is not liable. But as with most bar exam rules, there are exceptions. Liability may still attach when the work involves inherently dangerous activities, when the principal has a non-delegable duty, or when the principal negligently selects the contractor. If you see blasting, toxic chemicals, or unsafe premises in a fact pattern, be ready to discuss these exceptions.

Apparent Authority Twist

Even if a worker is not an employee, there is still one more wrinkle to consider. A principal may be liable if the worker had apparent authority. If the principal’s words or conduct led a third party to reasonably believe that the worker was acting on the principal’s behalf, liability can follow. This often appears when a former agent continues to act after termination but still carries the indicia of authority. On the exam, this is the chance to analyze both respondeat superior and apparent authority in the same question.

---

As you take a break this Labor Day, remember that the holiday is not only about rest and reflection but also about the legal lessons that come with honoring labor. For bar takers, that lesson is clear: classification matters.