Utah Court of Appeals
Can hearsay evidence establish independent contractor status in Utah? Zak v. Workforce Services Explained
Summary
Pany Zak operated a day spa and hired workers on a commission basis to provide services to her customers. The Department of Workforce Services determined the workers were employees subject to unemployment compensation contributions, not independent contractors. The Workforce Appeals Board affirmed after Zak’s administrative appeals.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Pany Zak operated a by-appointment-only day spa from her home, hiring workers on a commission basis to provide spa services. While workers could decline appointments, when they accepted, Zak controlled key aspects of the business relationship: she set service prices, collected payments, retained customers, prohibited workers from distributing business cards, and provided workspace at no cost. Workers received 1099-MISC forms and signed agreements stating they were “contract labor.”
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Zak’s spa workers qualified as independent contractors under Utah’s Employment Security Act or were employees subject to unemployment compensation contributions. A secondary issue involved whether the Workforce Appeals Board properly applied the residuum rule when evaluating hearsay evidence regarding workers’ independent business status.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied clear error review to the Board’s factual determinations. Under Utah law, workers are presumed employees unless the employer demonstrates they are independently established and free from control. The Board analyzed seven factors from Utah Administrative Code R944-204-303(1)(b) to determine independent contractor status. Critically, the court held that Zak’s testimony about workers’ statements regarding their own businesses, along with worker resumes, constituted hearsay evidence. Under the residuum rule, administrative findings cannot rest exclusively on inadmissible hearsay without corroboration.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of presenting competent, non-hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings challenging worker classifications. Practitioners should secure direct testimony from workers, business license documentation, or other admissible evidence to establish independent contractor status. The ruling also demonstrates that contractual labels and tax forms alone cannot overcome the statutory presumption of employee status when other factors point toward an employer-employee relationship.
Case Details
Case Name
Zak v. Workforce Services
Citation
2019 UT App 43
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20171040-CA
Date Decided
March 28, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Workforce Appeals Board did not clearly err in determining that spa workers were employees rather than independent contractors where the evidence failed to establish that workers were independently established in their own businesses.
Standard of Review
Clear error for factual determinations regarding worker classification as independent contractors versus employees
Practice Tip
When challenging worker classification determinations, ensure non-hearsay evidence is presented to establish each required factor, as administrative boards cannot base factual findings solely on hearsay testimony and documents.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.