Consultants for Long View Systems signed agreements stating they were independent contractors, which

Consultants for Long View Systems signed
agreements stating they were independent contractors, which also contained
non-compete provisions. However, after one exclusive, three-month engagement
for computer consulting, during which Long View paid Gino Lucero personally, by
the hour, Lucero filed for unemployment benefits claiming that he was an
employee. Though Lucero had signed the agreement and was paid directly by Long
View, he provided the services to a third party who oversaw his work, provided
the tools he used, and established (with Luceros agreement) the schedule for
the work. The

Consultants for Long View Systems signed
agreements stating they were independent contractors, which also contained
non-compete provisions. However, after one exclusive, three-month engagement
for computer consulting, during which Long View paid Gino Lucero personally, by
the hour, Lucero filed for unemployment benefits claiming that he was an
employee. Though Lucero had signed the agreement and was paid directly by Long
View, he provided the services to a third party who oversaw his work, provided
the tools he used, and established (with Luceros agreement) the schedule for
the work. The Colorado statute that governed this relationship requires that,
for Long View to show that Lucero was an independent contractor, Long View had
to show that he was (1) free from control and direction in the performance of
the service, and (2) customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation,
profession, or business related to the service performed for Long View. Should
Lucero be considered Long Views employee? [Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus.
Claim Appeals Office of State, 197 P.3d 295 (Colo. App. 2008).]