Skip to main content

Armand DeFelice v. State of Washington, Employment Security Dept.

Wash. Ct. App.May 26, 2015No. 32382-0
Defendant WinDr. Armand DeFelice (dental practice)$1,896.37 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The court affirmed the Employment Security Department's decision that Dr. Loretta and Dr. Louise were employees, not partners, and upheld the assessment of $1,896.37 in unemployment insurance back taxes, penalties, and interest against Dr. Armand.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About** Dr. Armand DeFelice, who owned a dental practice, got into a dispute with Washington State's Employment Security Department. The state said he owed unemployment insurance taxes for two dentists who worked in his practice - Dr. Loretta and Dr. Louise. Dr. DeFelice argued these dentists were his business partners, not employees, so he shouldn't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes for them. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the state agency. They confirmed that Dr. Loretta and Dr. Louise were actually employees of the dental practice, not business partners. This meant Dr. DeFelice had to pay $1,896.37 in back unemployment insurance taxes, plus penalties and interest that had built up over time. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is important because it shows courts will look closely at whether someone is truly a business partner or actually an employee. When employers incorrectly classify workers as partners or independent contractors instead of employees, those workers miss out on important protections like unemployment benefits. This decision helps ensure that people who work as employees get the legal protections they deserve, even when their employer tries to classify them differently.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.