Bindinglaw

CA · jury_instructions

CACI No. 3704

Existence of “Employee” Status Disputed

activein force · 2026-01-01 – presentcompiled-edition

[Name of plaintiff] must prove that [name of agent] was [name of

defendant]’s employee.

In deciding whether [name of agent] was [name of defendant]’s employee,

the most important factor is whether [name of defendant] had the right to

control how [name of agent] performed the work, rather than just the

right to specify the result. One indication of the right to control is that

the hirer can discharge the worker [without cause]. It does not matter

whether [name of defendant] exercised the right to control.

In deciding whether [name of defendant] was [name of agent]’s employer,

in addition to the right of control, you must consider the full nature of

their relationship. Y ou should take into account the following additional

factors, which, if true, may show that [name of defendant] was the

employer of [name of agent]. No one factor is necessarily decisive. Do not

simply count the number of applicable factors and use the larger

number to make your decision. It is for you to determine the weight and

importance to give to each of these additional factors based on all of the

evidence.

(a) [Name of defendant] supplied the equipment, tools, and place of

work;

(b) [Name of agent] was paid by the hour rather than by the job;

(c) [Name of defendant] was in business;

(d) The work being done by [name of agent] was part of the regular

business of [name of defendant];

(e) [Name of agent] was not engaged in a distinct occupation or

business;

(f) The kind of work performed by [name of agent] is usually done

under the direction of a supervisor rather than by a specialist

working without supervision;

(g) The kind of work performed by [name of agent] does not require

specialized or professional skill;

(h) The services performed by [name of agent] were to be performed

over a long period of time; [and]

(i) [Name of defendant] and [name of agent] believed that they had an

employer-employee relationship[./; and]

(j) [Specify other factor].

New September 2003; Revised December 2010, June 2015, December 2015,

November 2018, May 2020, May 2021, July 2025*

Provenance

Source
courts.ca.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-20
Edition
caci-2026
Content hash
1f5ae334257c9ce62acaf3acb7741f362f5b01d0738856d66d5fcf0c20489c92
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
CACI No. 3704 — Existence of “Employee” Status Disput… · binding.law