Free resource

1099 or W-2? Worker classification by state

A reference for interpreting agencies. Every state's primary test for telling an independent contractor from an employee, with the governing statute and an official source link.

Not legal advice. This is general information for orientation, compiled July 2026. Classification tests differ by legal purpose, even inside a single state. Unemployment insurance, wage and hour, workers’ compensation, and tax can each use a different test, and the law changes. This chart reflects mainly the unemployment insurance test, which is where the ABC test dominates and where interpreting agencies face the most exposure. Confirm your own situation with an employment attorney and an accountant in your state before making decisions.

Showing 51 of 51.

State	UI test	Agency exposure	Statute & source
Alabama	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	Ala. Code Title 25, Ch. 4 Official source ↗ No prong B. ADOL applies common-law right-of-control factors.
Alaska	ABC test (full, B disjunctive)	Agency exposure: High	AS 23.20.525(a)(8) Official source ↗ Prong B live but disjunctive. The 'outside all places' branch is the route for off-site interpreters.
Arizona	Common law (plus DIBS option)	Agency exposure: Lower	A.R.S. § 23-613.01; DIBS § 23-1601 Official source ↗ No prong B. A signed Declaration of Independent Business Status gives a rebuttable presumption. Lowest structural exposure.
Arkansas	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	Ark. Code § 11-10-210(e) Official source ↗ Prong B live (conjunctive). Interpreting is the agency's usual course, so exposed.
California	ABC test (full, strictest)	Agency exposure: High	Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 621(b); Labor Code §§ 2775-2787 (AB5) Official source ↗ Highest exposure. No 'outside all places' alternative. Narrow AB5 exemptions exist, but a staffing-style interpreting agency should assume full ABC.
Colorado	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(b)-(c) Official source ↗ No prong B. A signed document addressing 9 factors creates a rebuttable presumption of independence.
Connecticut	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-222(a)(1)(B)(ii) Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). Connecticut courts apply ABC strictly.
Delaware	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	19 Del. C. § 3302 (see note)⚑ Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). Verify the exact subsection: the official code reads (14)(K), older cites say (10)(K).
District of Columbia	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	D.C. Code § 51-101 Official source ↗ No prong B for UI. DC wage law uses an economic-realities test, and the three-prong ABC applies only to construction.
Florida	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	Fla. Stat. § 443.1216 Official source ↗ No prong B. 'Part of the regular business' is one non-dispositive factor.
Georgia	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	O.C.G.A. § 34-8-35(f)⚑ Official source ↗ No prong B. Prong A expanded to 7 factors by HB 389 (2022). Statute via a Justia mirror, confirmed against the Georgia DOL handbook.
Hawaii	ABC test (full, B disjunctive)	Agency exposure: High	HRS § 383-6 Official source ↗ Prong B live but disjunctive. The 'outside all places' branch is the route for off-site interpreters.
Idaho	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	Idaho Code § 72-1316(4) Official source ↗ No prong B. Control plus an independently established trade or business.
Illinois	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	820 ILCS 405/212 Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). IDES reads ABC strictly.
Indiana	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	Ind. Code 22-4-8-1 Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). Full ABC for UI despite a common-law reputation.
Iowa	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-23.19 Official source ↗ No prong B. Right of control over details and means governs.
Kansas	Common law (20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	K.S.A. § 44-703(i) Official source ↗ No prong B. Control over the result plus the manner and means governs.
Kentucky	Common law (IRS factors)	Agency exposure: Lower	KRS 341.050 Official source ↗ No prong B. The statute adopts the 'usual common law rules.' Link is the state agency guide, since the official statute portal is not machine-readable.
Louisiana	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	La. R.S. 23:1472(12)(E)⚑ Official source ↗ Prong B live. Confirm (12)(E) verbatim: the linked official page shows a related amendment.
Maine	Hybrid (control + 3 of 7 factors)	Agency exposure: Moderate	26 M.R.S. § 1043(11)(E) Official source ↗ No stand-alone prong B, but it requires control plus an independent business plus profit and loss, plus 3 of 7 extra factors. Demanding.
Maryland	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	Md. Labor & Empl. § 8-205 Official source ↗ Prong B live but disjunctive. Off-site interpreters (courts, hospitals, remote) may satisfy the 'outside all places' branch.
Massachusetts	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	M.G.L. c. 151A § 2 Official source ↗ Highest exposure. The wage law (c. 149 § 148B) is stricter still: conjunctive prong B, no off-site escape.
Michigan	Common law (IRS 20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	MCL 421.42 Official source ↗ No prong B. UIA applies the IRS 20-factor test.
Minnesota	Common law (5-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	Minn. Stat. 268.035; Rules 3315.0555 Official source ↗ No prong B. Stricter statutory tests apply only to construction and trucking.
Mississippi	Common law (master-servant)	Agency exposure: Lower	Miss. Code § 71-5-11(I)(14) Official source ↗ No prong B. The statute directs a common-law analysis. Often mislabeled ABC online.
Missouri	Common law (IRS 20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	RSMo 288.034 Official source ↗ No prong B. DES applies the IRS 20-factor test.
Montana	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	MCA § 39-71-417 (via § 39-51-201/204) Official source ↗ No prong B. Uses an Independent Contractor Exemption Certificate.
Nebraska	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-604(5) Official source ↗ Prong B live (conjunctive). Interpreting is the usual course, so exposed.
Nevada	ABC test (full, B disjunctive)	Agency exposure: High	NRS 612.085 Official source ↗ Prong B live but disjunctive. The wage context (NRS 608.0155) is separate and friendlier.
New Hampshire	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	RSA 282-A:9, III Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive: outside the usual course OR outside all places of business).
New Jersey	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	N.J. Stat. Ann. § 43:21-19(i)(6) Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). Applied liberally in favor of coverage (Hargrove v. Sleepy's).
New Mexico	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	NMSA 1978 § 51-1-42(F)(5)⚑ Official source ↗ Prong B live. Statute via a Justia mirror, since the official New Mexico portal blocks automated access.
New York	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	N.Y. Labor Law § 511 Official source ↗ No prong B. New York does have ABC-style tests in specific industries (construction, commercial goods transport), but not interpreting.
North Carolina	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-1(b) Official source ↗ No prong B. Turns on control over the manner and details of the work.
North Dakota	Common law (20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	N.D. Admin. Code 27-02-14 Official source ↗ No prong B. North Dakota repealed its ABC test in 1991 in favor of common-law control.
Ohio	Common law (20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	Ohio Rev. Code 4141.01(B) Official source ↗ No prong B. Right of control governs, and integration is one of 20 factors.
Oklahoma	Modified ABC (A plus B or C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	40 O.S. § 1-210(14) Official source ↗ 'Outside the usual course' is only one of two alternatives, so an agency can qualify via A plus an independent business.
Oregon	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	ORS 657.040 / 670.600 Official source ↗ No prong B. The same test applies across UI, workers' comp, and much of tax, which is unusually uniform.
Pennsylvania	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	43 P.S. § 753(l)(2)(B) Official source ↗ No prong B. But courts have narrowed prong C, so the missing-B advantage is smaller than it looks.
Rhode Island	Common law (IRS factors)	Agency exposure: Lower	R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-42-7 Official source ↗ The statute adopts the IRS control factors. No prong B.
South Carolina	Common law (control)	Agency exposure: Lower	S.C. Code § 41-27-230(1)(b) Official source ↗ The statute says 'usual common law rules.' Often mislabeled ABC online. It is not.
South Dakota	Modified ABC (A + C)	Agency exposure: Moderate	SDCL 61-1-11 Official source ↗ No prong B. Exposure shifts to prong C: is the interpreter a genuinely independent business.
Tennessee	Common law (IRS 20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-207(b)(2)(B) Official source ↗ Switched from ABC to the IRS 20-factor test effective 1/1/2020. No prong B now.
Texas	Common law (20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	Tex. Labor Code § 201.041; 40 TAC 815.134 Official source ↗ No prong B. TWC applies a 20-factor common-law direction-and-control test.
Utah	Modified ABC (the 'AB Test')	Agency exposure: Moderate	Utah Code § 35A-4-204(3) Official source ↗ No prong B. Official guidance calls it the two-part 'AB Test.'
Vermont	ABC test (full)	Agency exposure: High	21 V.S.A. § 1301(6)(B) Official source ↗ Prong B live (disjunctive). Read strictly against the agency.
Virginia	Common law (IRS 20-factor)	Agency exposure: Lower	Va. Code § 60.2-212(C) Official source ↗ No prong B. The 2020 reforms added a rebuttable employment presumption and penalties for wage and tax purposes.
Washington	ABC test (full, B disjunctive)	Agency exposure: High	RCW 50.04.140(1) Official source ↗ Prong B live but disjunctive. Off-site and remote interpreters may reach the 'outside all places' branch.
West Virginia	Hybrid (control + safe harbor)	Agency exposure: Lower	W. Va. Code § 21A-1A-16 / § 21-5I-4 Official source ↗ No prong B. A written contract plus tax filing plus control plus 3 of 7 criteria, otherwise IRS common-law control.
Wisconsin	Hybrid (control + 6 of 9)	Agency exposure: Moderate	Wis. Stat. 108.02(12) Official source ↗ No stand-alone prong B, but an interpreter who works mostly for one agency typically fails several of the 9 conditions.
Wyoming	Hybrid (control + self-employed + substitution)	Agency exposure: Moderate	Wyo. Stat. § 27-3-104(b) Official source ↗ No prong B. Watch the 'may substitute another individual' requirement: interpreters who cannot send a substitute fail it.

Why prong B decides most of this

Prong B is the requirement that the service fall outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. An interpreter does exactly what an interpreting agency sells, so wherever prong B is live, an agency generally fails it. That single sentence explains most of the red on this chart.

There is one common escape. Several full ABC states write prong B in the alternative: the service is outside the usual course of business, or it is performed outside all of the hiring entity’s places of business. Interpreters working in hospitals, courtrooms, classrooms, or remotely may satisfy that second branch. That is an argument, not a safe harbor. California is the strictest state on the chart precisely because it offers no such alternative.

How to read the categories

Full ABC. The worker is presumed an employee unless the agency proves all three prongs, including B. Because interpreting is your usual course of business, prong B is the sticking point. Highest structural exposure.

Modified ABC. An A plus C version that drops prong B. You are not automatically caught for using interpreters in your core service. The question becomes control, and whether the interpreter is genuinely an independent business. Oklahoma is a flexible variant that accepts A plus either B or C.

Common law, or right to control. The IRS style analysis of behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship between the parties. Whether the work is part of your regular business is one factor among many, not a stand-alone disqualifier.

Hybrid and other. A control requirement plus a statutory checklist. Maine wants 3 of 7, Wisconsin wants 6 of 9, West Virginia offers a safe harbor. No stand-alone prong B, but an interpreter who works almost entirely for one agency can still fail several conditions.

Source and accuracy notes

Every link goes to an official state statute site or a state labor or unemployment agency page, except where the row is marked with a flag. Georgia and New Mexico link to a statute text mirror because the official code portals block automated access. The underlying characterization is confirmed against the state agency.
Commonly mislabeled states, corrected here against the actual statute: South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi are frequently listed online as ABC states but use common law tests. Tennessee switched away from ABC effective 1/1/2020. Indiana is a full ABC state for unemployment insurance despite a common law reputation.
Wage and hour tests can be stricter than the unemployment test shown. Massachusettsis the sharpest example. Its wage statute (c. 149 § 148B) uses a conjunctive prong B with no outside all places escape, which an interpreting agency almost cannot satisfy. Nevada’s wage test, by contrast, is friendlier than its unemployment test.
Delaware’s ABC language appears at 19 Del. C. § 3302. Verify the exact subsection, since the official code currently reads (14)(K) and older cites say (10)(K).

Classification questions agencies ask

What is the ABC test?

It is a three-part test that presumes a worker is an employee unless the hiring business proves all three parts. A: the worker is free from control and direction. B: the service is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. C: the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business. Miss any one part and the worker counts as an employee for that purpose.

Why does prong B matter so much for an interpreting agency?

Prong B asks whether the work falls outside the usual course of your business. An interpreter does exactly what an interpreting agency sells. In a state where prong B is live, an agency generally cannot satisfy it, no matter how the contract is written or how little you direct the interpreter's work.

My interpreters work off site, at hospitals and schools. Does that help?

In some states, yes. Several full ABC states write prong B in the alternative: the service is outside the usual course of business, or it is performed outside all of the hiring entity's places of business. An interpreter working at a hospital, a courthouse, or remotely may satisfy that second branch. Treat it as an argument to raise with counsel, not a safe harbor. California is the strictest and has no such alternative.

Which states are hardest for a 1099 interpreter model?

The full ABC states, and California hardest of all. Massachusetts is close behind, because its wage statute uses a conjunctive prong B with no off-site alternative. New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Vermont all read the test strictly in favor of coverage.

Does the same test apply to taxes, wage claims, and workers' comp?

Often not. A single state can use one test for unemployment insurance, another for wage and hour claims, another for workers' compensation, and the IRS common-law test for federal tax. This chart covers the unemployment insurance test, which is where most agency audits start. Massachusetts and Nevada are good examples of states where the wage test and the unemployment test pull in different directions.

Which state's rules apply if my agency, my interpreter, and the job are in different states?

Usually the state where the work is performed, though unemployment insurance has its own localization rules that can point to the interpreter's base of operations instead. If you staff across state lines, assume you have to satisfy the strictest state you touch, and get that reviewed before you build your model around one state's answer.

Is this legal advice?

No. This is general information compiled from public statutes and state agency guidance, and the law changes. Use it to know which questions to ask, then confirm your own situation with an employment attorney and an accountant licensed in your state.

Whichever way you classify, OneTerp runs it

Contractors get rates, closeouts, and payouts. W-2 staff get shifts, a time clock, overtime, and PTO. Most agencies run both at once, so OneTerp handles both in the same schedule instead of making you keep two systems and reconcile them by hand.

Start free See pricing

Questions about your setup? Talk to us.