Connection lost
Server error
KIRBY OF NORWICH v. ADM'R, UNEMP. COMP. ACT Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A vacuum company argued its door-to-door salespeople were independent contractors. The court disagreed, holding they were employees because the company failed to prove the salespeople were actually engaged in an independent business of the same nature, not just that they were free to do so.
Legal Significance: This case reaffirms a strict interpretation of Part C of the ABC test for independent contractor status. It requires proof that a worker is actually and customarily engaged in an independent business, not merely that they possess the freedom or ability to do so.
KIRBY OF NORWICH v. ADM'R, UNEMP. COMP. ACT Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Kirby of Norwich, sold vacuums through door-to-door sales representatives. The Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act Administrator determined that these representatives were employees, not independent contractors, thereby obligating Kirby to contribute to the state’s unemployment fund. The determination hinged on the statutory “ABC test,” which presumes an employment relationship unless the employer can satisfy all three of its prongs. The dispute centered on Part C, which requires the employer to show the individual is “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.” Kirby appealed the administrator’s decision, which was upheld by the Employment Security Board of Review. The Board found that Kirby presented no evidence that its sales representatives operated their own independent vacuum sales businesses. Evidence that one representative also sold cell phones and another worked at a church was deemed irrelevant because those activities were not “of the same nature” as vacuum sales. Kirby argued that the representatives’ freedom to pursue an independent sales business was sufficient to satisfy Part C, even if they were not currently doing so.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Part C of the statutory ABC test for independent contractor status require a putative employer to prove that a worker is actually and customarily engaged in an independent business of the same nature, or is it sufficient to show that the worker is merely free to do so?
Yes. The sales representatives are employees because Kirby failed to satisfy its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia dese
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Part C of the statutory ABC test for independent contractor status require a putative employer to prove that a worker is actually and customarily engaged in an independent business of the same nature, or is it sufficient to show that the worker is merely free to do so?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies a strict, fact-based application of the ABC test's third Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
Legal Rule
Under Connecticut's Unemployment Compensation Act, a service provider is considered an employee Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut eni
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the lower court's judgment, focusing its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under Connecticut’s “ABC test” for worker classification, an employer must prove