1. Load

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md

   → jurisdictional footprint, escalation table.
2. Run the full workflow below.
3. If the attorney provides details upfront, extract what's available and ask only about the gaps. Do not re-ask information already provided.

Has this work already started? Is the worker currently engaged, or have they been performing work under this arrangement for any period of time (days, weeks, months, or years)?

Out of scope — existing arrangement.

This skill is designed to analyze a worker engagement before it starts, so the classification choice informs how to structure the contract and operations. You've described an arrangement that already exists. Analyzing an existing engagement retroactively is a different exercise: reclassification risk assessment coupled with remediation planning — back-pay exposure, payroll-tax back-exposure, penalty exposure, benefits exposure, IRS § 530 relief analysis, and prospective restructuring. That work should be privileged, led by an attorney, and likely coupled with outside-counsel review given the dollar and enforcement exposure.

Recommended next step: escalate per your config's escalation table (for retroactive classification, this typically routes to GC + outside employment counsel). I've flagged this for escalation routing.

If you want to proceed with the prospective-style analysis anyway for planning purposes, say "proceed anyway" — but understand:

• The output is NOT a remediation plan and should not be treated as one.
• The output does NOT scope back-pay, penalty, or payroll-tax exposure for the period already worked.
• The output does NOT substitute for the reclassification-risk assessment that this fact pattern actually calls for.
• The output will carry a prominent banner reflecting this scope mismatch, and the consequential-action gate will require an attorney yes before the analysis is treated as reliable.

Only say "proceed anyway" if you're using this skill for forward-looking planning (e.g., "if we were structuring this fresh today, how should we think about it?") and you have a separate plan for the remediation question.

"proceed anyway"

⚠️ SCOPE MISMATCH — OUT-OF-SCOPE USE
This skill analyzes prospective worker engagements. The arrangement here
already exists. This output is the prospective-style analysis the user
requested for planning purposes only — it is NOT a remediation plan, does
NOT scope existing back-pay / penalty / payroll-tax exposure, and does
NOT substitute for the reclassification-risk assessment this fact pattern
requires. The remediation question has been flagged for escalation to
counsel per your config's escalation table.

To run the right classification tests I need to understand the proposed arrangement in detail. Please answer as many of these as you can — the more complete the picture, the more accurate the analysis:

The work

• What will this person actually do day-to-day?
• Is this work part of your company's core business, or peripheral to it? (e.g., a software engineer at a software company = core; an IT contractor at a law firm = more peripheral)
• Is this a defined project with a clear end, or ongoing indefinite work?
• How specialized is the skill? Does this person have expertise your team doesn't?

Control

• Who sets their hours and schedule — them or you?
• Where will they work — your office, their location, or either?
• Will you direct how they do the work (methods, process, sequence), or just what the end result should be?
• Will they supervise any of your employees?

Economics

• How will they be paid — hourly, daily, or fixed project fee?
• Will you provide equipment, tools, or software, or do they use their own?
• Do they work for other companies, or will this be exclusive?
• Will they bear any financial risk — can they profit beyond the fee, or lose money on the engagement?
• Do they have their own business entity (LLC, S-corp, sole proprietor)?

The arrangement

• How do you want to structure this — direct contractor, staffing agency temp, or vendor/SOW (company-to-company)?
• If staffing agency: who pays the worker — the agency or you? Who controls day-to-day work?
• Will there be a written contract? Do you have a template in mind?
• Roughly how long is the engagement — weeks, months, over a year?
• Will they work alongside your employees doing similar work?

Purpose(s) of the classification

• What legal purposes does the classification need to serve — federal payroll tax, FLSA wage/hour, state wage/hour, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, benefits eligibility? Different purposes are often governed by different tests, and the answers can diverge.

Jurisdiction

• Where will this person physically perform the work?

Research the applicable tests before proceeding. For the jurisdiction(s) and purpose(s) identified in intake, research the currently operative classification test(s). Jurisdictions commonly use one or more of: an ABC test, an economic-realities test, a common-law right-to-control test, a hybrid, or a purpose-specific statutory test. The test that governs for federal payroll tax may not be the same test that governs for state wage/hour, unemployment, or workers' compensation — run each purpose on its own track. Cite the controlling statute, regulation, or case. Note the effective date of each rule and whether it has been recently amended. Identify any carve-outs or exceptions that may apply (e.g., B2B, professional services, construction, referral-agency, business-to-business contracting relationship). Verify currency. If you are uncertain about the current state of the law in any jurisdiction, flag it for attorney verification — do not state a test you haven't confirmed.

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool returns few or no results for a jurisdiction-and-purpose combination, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [jurisdiction / purpose / test]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged

[web search — verify]

and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) flag as unverified and stop. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.

Source attribution. Tag every citation — each classification test, statute, regulation, or case — with where it came from:

[Westlaw]

,

[CourtListener]

, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector;

[web search — verify]

for web-search citations;

[model knowledge — verify]

for citations recalled from training data;

[user provided]

for citations the attorney supplied. Citations tagged

verify

carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags.

• Employee (W-2): Facts support employment under one or more applicable tests for the relevant purpose(s).
• Independent Contractor (1099): Facts support IC status under all applicable tests for the relevant purpose(s).
• Temp via staffing agency: Worker will be on the agency's payroll; company is a client — co-employment risk exists if company exercises day-to-day control. Research the applicable joint-employer standard if relevant.
• Vendor/SOW: Company-to-company engagement; worker is employed by the vendor entity — cleanest structure if facts support it.
• Unclear / close call: Facts cut both ways under one or more tests — state which test is the problem and why.

Intended structure: [what they said they want]
What the facts suggest: [what the researched tests say this actually is]

Gaps — where the arrangement doesn't match the intended structure:
🔴 [Factor]: [What they described] conflicts with [intended classification]
   because [specific researched test language + cite]. This is a significant
   misclassification risk if the engagement proceeds as described.
🟡 [Factor]: [What they described] is a weaker point under [test]. Not
   disqualifying alone, but combined with other factors increases risk.
✅ [Factor]: Supports [intended classification]. No issue.

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md

• The jurisdiction uses a strict test and the proposed work is core to the company's business — do not proceed without counsel review.
• Prior misclassification settlement or audit noted in the config — heightened scrutiny applies.
• Worker will supervise employees or have significant budget authority.
• Engagement expected to exceed 12 months with no clear project endpoint.
• Any contested prong where the outcome changes the classification.

Research-connector pre-flight. Before emitting the analysis, check whether a legal research connector is reachable for this session — Westlaw, CourtListener, or any firm-configured research MCP. Collect this into the reviewer note per CLAUDE.md

## Outputs

: if no connector returns results in Step 2 (or none is configured at run time), record it in the Sources: line of the reviewer note — e.g.,

not connected — cites from training knowledge; the highest-fabrication pinpoints in classification analyses are ABC-test codifications, state carve-out subsections (e.g., CA Lab. Code §§ 2775/2776/2783), element counts in B2B exemptions, and purpose-specific test selection — spot-check those first

. Per-citation

[model knowledge — verify]

tags remain inline. Do not emit a standalone banner above the output.

Jurisdiction assumption. This analysis applies the tests operative in the jurisdiction(s) identified in intake. Classification rules vary materially by state and country, and the test that governs for one purpose (e.g., federal payroll tax) often differs from the test that governs another (e.g., state wage/hour). If the work will be performed in a jurisdiction not analyzed here, or if a new purpose is added later, this analysis may not apply as written.

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

## Who's using this

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md

Classifying a worker has legal consequences — misclassification exposes the company to back wages, taxes, benefits, penalties, and private-action risk, and in several states is strict-liability. Have you reviewed this classification call with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:

• The arrangement (work, control, economics, structure) as described
• Jurisdiction and which tests were applied
• Test-by-test results with cites and currency
• Gap analysis (🔴 / 🟡 / ✅) with the weak prongs called out
• Open questions and what's unresolved
• What could go wrong (the misclassification theory this arrangement most likely fails on; prior-audit/settlement overlay if any)
• What to ask the attorney (is IC viable here; would restructuring through an agency or vendor remove the risk; what contract terms do we need to support the classification)

If you need to find an attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: contact your professional regulator (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent) for a referral service.

• Analyze an existing relationship retroactively — this is prospective only.
• Draft the contractor agreement or SOW.
• Advise on remediation if misclassification has already occurred.
• State the law for any jurisdiction on its own — every test, factor, and carve-out must come from verified current research.
• Substitute for outside counsel on close calls — strict-test jurisdictions, contested prongs, and prior-audit situations should always get a human review before the engagement starts.