| Course | DBA-8070 Seminar in Law, Ethics, and Global Society |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 written assignment: employment law |
| Length | About 550 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBA 8070 Module 3
Three Questions We Cannot Pass: Our Installers Under New Jersey's ABC Test
Student Name
Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
DBA-8070: Seminar in Law, Ethics, and Global Society
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Questions We Cannot Pass: Our Installers Under New Jersey's ABC Test
Introduction
For more than a decade our installers have worked as independent contractors. Most work only for us, use our trucks for large jobs, follow our schedules and wear our shirts on site. As we form an installation company, the owners asked whether these workers should become employees. The legal answer turns out not to be a choice.
The New Jersey Test
New Jersey's unemployment statute starts from the presumption that anyone paid for services is an employee, and the business can rebut it only by meeting each prong of the ABC test: (A) the company does not control or direct how the work is done, now or later; (B) the work lies outside the company's ordinary line of business, or is done away from every place the company does business; and (C) the worker regularly runs a trade or business of their own (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 43:21-19(i)(6)). In Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC (2015), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the same test governs whether a worker is an employee under the state's wage payment and wage and hour laws. The case involved delivery drivers whom a mattress retailer had classified as contractors.
Our installers fail each prong. We direct their work through schedules, drawings and our project managers, so (A) fails. Installing our own products is part of the usual course of our business, and much of it happens at customer sites we control under contract, so (B) fails. Eight of the eleven work only for us and have no business of their own, so (C) fails for them. The test requires the business to prove all three; failing any one makes the worker an employee.
The Federal Approach
Federal wage law uses a different standard. The Fair Labor Standards Act reaches anyone the employer will "suffer or permit to work" (29 U.S.C. § 203), a definition broad enough that courts look past labels and ask who really depends on whom for a living. The Supreme Court in Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb (1947) looked at the whole activity, not labels, in finding that meat boners called contractors were employees. Our installers' dependence on our work, our control of their schedules and their small investment point to employee status under this approach too.
Why It Matters
Misclassification carries back wages for unpaid overtime, unpaid unemployment and disability contributions, workers' compensation exposure and penalties. It also has costs beyond law. Kalleberg (2000) reviews research showing that nonstandard arrangements, including independent contracting, often shift risk and lower benefits for workers, which affects their security and their commitment to the firm.
Recommendation
The installers should become employees of the new installation company from its first day. That means hourly pay with overtime after 40 hours, payroll tax withholding, unemployment and disability contributions, workers' compensation coverage and inclusion in the company's health plan. The three installers who run their own businesses and work for several firms could remain contractors for specialized jobs, documented project by project. Counsel should review whether past misclassification creates exposure and how to address it.
Conclusion
Under both state and federal tests, our installers are employees. Bringing them in as employees aligns the company with the law and gives the new business a stable crew.
References
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (2018).
Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015).
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341-365. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.341
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 43:21-19(i)(6) (West 2024). Definitions; employment.
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947).
DBA 8070 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
Employment law fills the third DBA-8070 module; the syllabus does not date its four written assignments, so one is set beside this module here. Choose an employment problem your organization really has, set out the rules that decide it, run the facts through them and say what the company should do. Worker classification, discrimination, wage and hour duties and at-will limits are all fair subjects. Cite statutes and cases precisely and distinguish state from federal law where they differ. The course asks you to connect law with business practice and ethics, so explain both the legal exposure and the effect on the people involved.
Inside the DBA 8070 Module 3 example
The paper opens with facts that matter legally: workers who serve one company, use its trucks and follow its schedules. The state section quotes the three prongs of the ABC test, explains the burden on the business and summarizes Hargrove v. Sleepy's. Each prong is then applied to the installers in turn. A federal section explains the economic reality approach through the statute's definition and Rutherford Food. Kalleberg's review adds the human side of contracting. The recommendation converts the installers to employees with specific obligations, keeps genuine contractors only for specialized jobs and refers past exposure to counsel. A short conclusion states that the law leaves little choice. The recommendation separates future practice from past exposure, which goes to counsel.
Where the marks sit in the DBA 8070 Module 3 rubric
Mentors grade DBA-8070 written assignments on correct statement and application of law, use of legal and scholarly sources, analysis, practical recommendations and APA style. Here the marks go to papers that set out every element of the test and match each to facts, not to lists of factors. Distinguishing state and federal standards shows legal literacy. Accurate citation of cases and statutes, including holdings stated without exaggeration, shows care. Recommendations that list concrete obligations, such as overtime, withholding and insurance, show that the analysis has been carried into practice. Mentors also look for awareness that classification has tax and insurance consequences, not only wage effects.
DBA 8070 Module 3 help from the desk
Common problems include describing the difference between employees and contractors in general terms without applying any test, mixing state and federal standards as if they were one or concluding that a written contractor agreement settles the question. Others ignore the burden of proof in ABC states. Pick a real classification or employment decision, state the governing test element by element and apply each element to the facts. Cite the statute and a leading case. End with the steps the organization must take, including payroll and insurance. A free first draft on your own crew or staffing question for DBA-8070 is available if you send the facts. Address each prong of the state test separately, since a business must prove all three to keep contractor status.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DBA 8070 and Doctor of Business Administration sample papers
- DBA 8070 Module 1: Written Assignment: Why One Body of Commercial Law Matters to a Millwork Maker
- DBA 8070 Module 2: Written Assignment: An Installation LLC and a Hospital Subcontract Under Review
- DBA 8070 Module 4: Written Assignment: A Compliance and Ethics Program Built for a 140-Person Shop
- DBA 8070 Module 5: Discussion: A Union Drive in the Finishing Room, Under U.S. and International Labor Law
- DBA 8070 Module 6: Final Project: A Legal, Cultural and Ethical Plan for a Finishing Plant in Nuevo Leon
- DBA 8040 Module 1: Written Assignment: Why Strategic Insight Is the Leader's Job
- DBA 8000 Module 1: Written Assignment: Decision Rules for a Clinical Laboratory's Core Lab Investment
- OML 8020 Module 6: Culture Research Seminar Paper: Meta-Analytic Tests and the Future of Culture Studies
- HRM 8030 Module 1: Written Assignment: HR Leadership and Organizational Culture
DBA 8070 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBA 8070 Module 3 sample paper?
The paper above applies New Jersey's ABC test and the federal economic reality approach to a millwork maker's installers.
What is the ABC test in New Jersey?
New Jersey counts a paid worker as an employee unless the company shows three things: no control over how the work is done, work outside its normal business or premises, and the worker's own established trade.
What did Hargrove v. Sleepy's decide?
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the ABC test determines employee status under the state's wage payment and wage and hour laws.
What is the economic reality test?
Federal courts look at the entire relationship and ask whether the worker leans on one company for income or truly works on their own account.
Can a written contract make someone an independent contractor?
A signed contractor agreement does not settle it; judges and agencies look at how the installers actually work day to day.