We just wrapped up an SEO project for one of our clients, Patrick Kitchin of Kitchin Legal. We learned a lot during the process of working with him, so we invited him to provide us with a guest post on a topic that is near and dear to our hearts: remote workers. This blog covers work within the US, but the ethics questions at the bottom are essential for all businesses. As a Certified B Corp, we believe that treating workers fairly is central to doing business for good. Read on to find out how laws like AB 5 apply to you.



Many small California technology businesses operate almost entirely with remote workers and have often relied on technical workers from across the country (and across the world) to conduct their businesses. From software designers to technical analysts, a California-based business can now maintain a single-person operation here, with a workforce comprised of dozens of tech workers outside of the jurisdiction of California laws. Small tech companies often classify, pay, and treat their entire remote workforce as independent contractors. How likely is it that this type of workforce arrangement complies with all applicable federal and state labor laws? Not very likely.

The classification of workers affects small business owners around the world. If you are operating a business in California using independent contractors who are living and working in other states, classification is an issue that you must consider.


California’s employment laws provide additional protections to workers that are not available under federal law. Take rest breaks, for example. Hourly, non-exempt employees working in California are entitled to two 10-minute rest breaks during a full workday. That right is not provided under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Out-of-state companies that come into California to conduct business are particularly vulnerable to inadvertently establishing employment policies and practices that violate California employment laws. At times, businesses new to California seem unaware that California and federal employment laws differ significantly.

California companies, in turn, conduct business in other states when they hire a resident there to perform work. Consequently, this makes California companies also particularly vulnerable to unintentionally violating other state’s employment laws, particularly with respect to how the company classifies, pays, and treats its workers.


Under the ABC Rule, a worker is an employee unless the employing party can prove:

A. The hired person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

B. The hired person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

C. The hired person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

(For more on the ABC Test, please see my articles on the passage of AB-5 and work within the fitness studio industry after AB-5.)

For decades employers have been guided by a more flexible definition of “to employee” in California. The multi-factor or “economic realities test” announced by the California Supreme Court in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v Dept. of Industrial Relations differentiated employees from independent contractors based on 11 factors, including the amount of control over the worker, the permanency of the relationship and the intention of the parties.

This multi-factor test made it feasible, at times, to create working relationships with persons inside of California who could be properly classified and treated as independent contractors though doing the company’s work. We did so by drafting contracts that expressly identified the worker as an independent contractor and that gave more control over the performance of the work to the contractor. Often the agreements just created a legal fiction on paper to disguise the fact that the person likely was an employee all along. Telling that story is no longer possible for most people engaged to work in California.

This means that if you employ workers in California, AB-5 and the ABC Test will apply to you. If you cannot meet all three parts of the ABC Test, the worker is an employee and not an independent contractor.

But, what about persons who are residents of other states that you engage to work remotely for your California business? Can they still be classified as independent contractors?


I have prosecuted a number of wage and hour lawsuits against out-of-state and foreign companies that failed to provide Kitchin Legal’s clients with proper overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, and other benefits of employment. Some of the cases were valued at over $100,000 in damages for a single underpaid person. The risks associated with misclassification are very real.


Claims relating to the way compensation was paid, records kept, reimbursements made and how certain working conditions were maintained are commonly called, “wage and hour” claims. It appears that most hourly-paid remote tech workers generally are paid in excess of state or local minimum wage for their work. But often such workers are not paid overtime in accordance with local state laws when they work long days and/or long weeks.

Workers who are paid on a project basis are different. A remote worker might be paid a flat rate for completing the design of a website, for example. Whether it takes the designer 40 hours or 60 hours to complete a project sometimes is not accounted for in the payment. Furthermore, whether all of that work is performed in a few, very long days, or over the course of weeks is not sometimes not addressed in the remote worker contract.

Specific working conditions can raise the minimum wage and overtime wage problems, as well as issues relating to recordkeeping under federal and state laws.

In addition, companies employing remote workers as independent contractors do not generally pay for the internet service the worker needs to perform their work and sometimes require workers to purchase and use specific software in their work. If the worker’s home state laws are similar to California laws, then a worker could seek reimbursement of business expenses from the California company in a lawsuit.


It is unlikely that a small website design company operating out of the owner’s home in San Francisco will be sued by a remote worker in another state whom they misclassified as an independent contractor. Unless the potential damages are substantial, it is too expensive to prosecute many wage and hour cases. Furthermore, obtaining a recovery of monetary damages from a small company in another state at the end of a very long and expensive litigation process is very difficult.

In addition to economic issues, small companies should evaluate an important ethical issue. Is it right that the employing party and the worker (who often are of unequal bargaining power) are able to negotiate and define the nature of their working relationship — even if their decision violates employment laws that were put into place to protect the worker? I think this question is at the crux of the challenge that both entrepreneurs and gig economy workers are facing today.

When it is clear that the classification violates the law, the questions facing the business and the worker are quite different.

The worker should ask themselves if they value the relationship highly enough, either financially or for other reasons, to work without all of the employment benefits guaranteed them under their state’s laws. Is the tradeoff they are making a fair one? The worker should ask themselves a lot of what-if questions too. What if I am injured on the job? What if the other party decides not to pay me for my work? What if the other party sexually harasses me? Protections from these events are greater for employees.

The business owner should ask themselves about fairness too, but also a more practical economic question. Does the company trust and value the relationship highly enough to accept 100% responsibility for the decision to classify a worker as an independent contractor if the company is sued? It is not a defense to most employment claims to say that the worker agreed to be paid in a way that violates the law. The employer owns those kinds of decisions.


Finally, does the working relationship always need to be classified correctly in the gig economy? What role do the parties need to play? Is it acceptable for the two parties to opt-out of our labor laws to satisfy their individual needs? These questions are more difficult to answer now. And, of course, the right answers are non-binary.

Patrick Kitchin is the founder of Kitchin Legal, APC, an employment law firm in San Francisco, California. Patrick represents both employees and employers in a broad range of employment matters. With more than 25 years of experience and an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale Hubbell, Patrick Kitchin is a trusted voice in employment law in California. Please visit the Kitchin Legal Takeaway, Patrick’s employment law blog, and Kitchin Legal’s YouTube channel for more information about California law. If you have questions about this topic or others affecting workplaces in California, please schedule a free initial consultation with Patrick by emailing him at

I work to make the web a more beautiful, accessible, and functional place. I use dreams as a form of planning. And I play because it’s fun.