It was a followup court case which agreed it does - https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/13/business/technology-temp-...

And the ruling makes it clear that it’s based on the actual on the ground reality, which is why vendors get pulled in the same way.

If the main company is the one giving the vendors employees their direction, managing them, setting hours explicitly, they get included in all hands, etc. then the main company is also on the hook for being their actual employer as far as benefits, taxes, etc. go.

So there needs to be a clear delineation at all times, or bad things happen to the primary company regarding costs.

Thank you!

Apologies for not including the context originally. Thanks for challenging me on it!