Category Archives: Construction

08.26.24
by

“Relative Nature”: Can You Bear This Broad Workers Comp Test for Employee Status?

Nature can be cruel. Friends can be crueler.

A 32-year old man was attacked by a brown bear earlier this month while hunting near Cooper Landing, Alaska. The man survived the bear attack, but then his hunting buddy shot him in the leg when trying to kill the bear. Thanks, buddy!

(No, it was not Dick Cheney.)

Nature makes its way into independent contractor status tests too, sometimes — relative nature, that is. Today’s post is about a test sometimes used in workers compensation cases.

In D.C., the test for whether someone is an employee under the workers’ comp law is a “relative nature of the work test.” States that have adopted this broad test have moved away from the more common “right to control” test.

Under this test, an employment relationship is found when (1) the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and (2) the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service.

Here’s how D.C. courts interpret the two parts.

The first part focuses on the “nature and character of the claimant’s work or business” and requires consideration of three factors: (a) the degree of skill involved in the work in question; (b) the degree to which it is a separate calling or business; and (c) the extent to which it can be expected to carry its own accident burden.

The second part of the test focuses on the relation of the claimant’s work to the employer’s business and also requires consideration of three factors: (a) the extent to which the claimant’s work is a regular part of the employer’s regular work; (b) whether it is continuous or intermittent; and (c) whether its duration is sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services, as distinguished from contracting for the completion of a particular job.

In states that use this type of workers comp test, more relationships will be captured than under other, more traditional worker classification tests.

But this might not be a bad thing. The benefit of workers comp coverage for businesses is that it protects them from tort liability. In industries like construction, where injuries can be serious, coverage can be helpful. The disadvantage is that workers comp is no-fault, and you’re required to pay for the coverage.

So next time you’re hunting to see whether you might need to provide workers comp coverage to your contractor or causal laborer, remember that some states have pretty broad tests. Not broad enough to get coverage if your hunting buddy shoots you in the leg, but you get the idea.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.20.23
by

Tips for Avoiding Liability for Injuries by Contractor Employees, Thanks to Laura Branigan

Raise your hand if you remember songs by Laura Branigan? How about “Gloria”? Or this lyric? You take my self, you take my self control?

The song “Self Control” is about stepping into the nightlife, with a bit of seedier, seductive angle. The lyrics, though, remind us of another reason not to exert control over an independent contractor’s employees.

Suppose you retain a contractor to replace the roof on your building. The contractor has legitimate employees, and one falls through a weak spot on the roof. That’s a worker’s comp claim, and you’re not liable for some kind of premises liability claim, right?

The answer may depend on whether you’ve exerted control over the contractor’s employees.

Let’s look at California law, but the same principle can often be applied elsewhere. (Check your state’s law.) Under the Privette doctrine, a property owner who hires an independent contractor is liable to the contractor’s employee for injuries sustained on the job only if (1) the owner exercises control over any part of the contractor’s work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injuries, or (2) the employee is injured by a concealed hazard that is unknown and not reasonably ascertainable by the contractor.

The keys points in avoiding premises liability claims are, therefore:

  • Don’t exert control over how your contractors’ employees do their job, and
  • Make sure any hazards are marked or disclosed.

You could have other problems if the contractor misclassifies its workers and treats them as individual subcontractors. But avoiding control can also help you avoid joint employer liability in that situation.

The bottom line here when dealing with contractors’ employees is to avoid Laura Branigan’s idea of the nightlife: Don’t take their self, don’t take their self-control.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.30.21
by

How to Avoid Liability for an Independent Contractor’s Injuries (Hint: Don’t Throw Stones)

“The Wound was Bound,” 1912. From NYPL Collection.

Sometimes injuries can be reasonably expected, sometimes not.

A good example of when injuries can be expected is the annual Bagwal festival in northern India. This year’s festival was described by Indian media as “a low-key affair” with only 77 of the 300 participants sustaining injuries. Wait, what?

At Bagwal, participants divide into four clans and hurl stones at each other to please a deity. According to this report, “The fight continues until a priest determines that enough blood has been shed in honor of the goddess Maa Barahi and demands to stop the fight.”

A good example of when injuries are not expected is when you retain an independent contractor to perform some sort of work on your property. Sometimes there are known hazards on the property. Sometimes there are no reasonable safety precautions that can be taken to minimize the hazard. For example, suppose you retain a contractor to fix a known safety risk.

The question: When an independent contractor gets injured by one of those known hazards, who is liable?

The California Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case with significant ramifications for business owners, property owners, and independent contractors.

The answer: The contractor is liable, not the property owner — but this assumes the contractor is properly classified as an independent contractor.

The rationale: Like in many states, California law presumes “that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety.” This doctrine, known in California as the Privette doctrine, means that a hirer is typically not responsible for injuries suffered by an independent contractor.

The Privette doctrine makes sense. It arose out based on four basic assumptions:

  1. Hirers have no right to control an independent contractor’s work.
  2. Contractors can factor in the cost of safety precautions and insurance in the contract price.
  3. Contractors are able to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to cover any on-the-job injuries.
  4. Contractors are typically hired for their expertise, which includes knowing how to perform the contracted work safely.

There are two exceptions:

  1. A hirer may be liable when it exercises control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that control in a way that contributes to the injury.
  2. A landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard.

In Gonzalez v. Mathis, the court was asked whether a third exception should be recognized when injuries “result from a known hazard on the premises where there were no reasonable safety precautions it could have adopted to avoid or minimize the hazard.”

The court declined to recognize this exception, holding that in this situation, the contractor is liable, not the hirer. Rules may vary in other states.

What should businesses do to protect themselves, in light of this ruling?

  1. Make sure your contractors are properly classified as independent contractors under the applicable legal test. California uses an ABC Test for making this determination. Other California laws, such as Labor Code 2750.5 and 2810.3 complicate the analysis.
  2. Make sure your contractors are licensed and insured. Licensing by the Contractors State Licensing Board is required in California for anyone who contracts to perform work on a project that is valued at $500 or more for combined labor and materials costs.
  3. Do not exercise control over your contractors. Defer to their expertise.
  4. Disclose known hazards, especially those that are not readily visible.

And if you’re looking for repair work to be done at or near a Bagwal festival, don’t forget warn your contractor about the risk of flying stones.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.29.18
by

Village People’s Construction Worker Character Wins! Court Expands OSHA Liability for General Contractors

Village People from Wikipedia 1978

The Village People (1978), from Wikipedia

According to the Official Website of the Village People, the group’s original lineup included Disco King, Construction Worker, Cowboy, Leatherman, Indian, and two “Nondescripts.” They were later joined by Cop, G.I., and Biker. Keeping with the times, as we know the Village People do, the costume formerly known as Indian has been rebranded as Native American. (True!)

But Cop or No Cop, Biker or No Biker, there has always been a Construction Worker since the band’s founding in 1977.

A recent court case involving construction workers tests whether a general contractor in control of a worksite (we’ll call him “Macho Man,” after the 1978 hit) has a legal duty to protect another contractor’s employee (we’ll call him “Hot Cop,” after a different 1978 V.P. tune), when none of Macho Man’s own employees are at risk.

The issue arose during a library construction project in Austin, Texas. One subcontractor refused to allow its employees to work near a 12-foot high wall of dirt that had not been properly sloped or reinforced. A citation was issued to the general contractor for allowing the unsafe condition, but it was undisputed that none of the general contractors’ own employees were endangered by the wall of dirt.

“Why does that matter?” you might be asking.

Although the condition was a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had taken the position since 1981 (when the V.P. released the album, Renaissance) that “OSHA regulations protect only an employer’s own employees.”

The Court’s ruling earlier this week abandoned that rule, instead finding that a general contractor could be cited under OSHA for allowing an unsafe condition that affected only the employees of another contractor.

In response to the Court’s ruling, the Village People have reportedly abandoned plans to introduce a nebishy Health Inspector character on their next tour.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

04.16.18
by

New California Law Aims to Punish Contractors for Wage Violations They Did Not Commit. Huh?

EA9758A9-CA27-4BE3-B11B-53338CF1CEB1

Suppose you are a general contractor, hired to erect a monument to honor Carlos Santana’s monument-worthy performance of the national anthem during last year’s NBA Finals. Because the monument will be so tall (to house the many awards he should win for it), you need to hire subcontractors. Suppose the subcontractors cheat their employees, though, and don’t pay them a proper wage.

Under a new California law, the general contractor is strictly liable for the sub’s wage violations.

There’s no balancing test. No Right to Control Test. No joint employment finding needed. It’s strict liability. Call it the Jerry Brown corollary to Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule. Someone else breaks it, you own it.

I hear you: “Not fair!” But as we all know, fair is not a required feature element of employment law in California. (Fair may still be an element of due process, however, for those who may seek to challenge the constitutionality of this law.)

The new law, cleverly titled “Section 218.7,” took effect January 1, 2018.

To try to protect themselves, contractors may require their subs to show proof of payment by the subs to its employees. They may also tell noncompliant subs, “you’ve got to change your evil ways, baby, before I start loving you.” But most contractors probably won’t say that.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

12.11.17
by

Did You Know You Can Be Cited for OSHA Violations for Non-Employee Workers?

osha violations joint employment

Can OSHA cite your business for conditions that affect another company’s employees? Maybe.

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy addresses who gets cited for violations that occur on a multi-employer worksite. If your company hosts staffing agency workers, that may include you.

The policy has been subjected to several legal challenges, though, based on an argument that OSHA obligations extend only to an employer’s own employees. One of these challenges is currently pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based on a dispute over an Austin, Texas, construction site.

While we wait for a decision, though, here’s what OSHA has to say about its authority to issue citations on multi-employer worksites: Continue reading →

11.06.17
by

Don’t Wear Pajamas to Work: Be Careful Using “Statutory Minimum” Workers Comp Clauses in Subcontractor Agreements

Pajamas - Independent Contractor Agreements and Workers Compensation ClausesHave you ever had the dream where you show up at work or school in your pajamas or underwear? You’re exposed and embarrassed in the dream, and you can’t figure out why you forgot to put on regular clothes, right? (Please don’t tell me I’m the only one who’s had this dream. Please?)

You may be living this dream inadvertently in your vendor or subcontractor agreements. (And this is not what people mean when they say, “I’m living the dream!”)

Here’s the problem:

Continue reading →

09.07.17
by

Court Serves Up Reminder that Contractors Can Be Properly Classified and Misclassified – At The Same Time.

elephant-reminder pennsylvania court joint employment joint empoyer construction workplace misclassification act

A recurring theme in this blog has been that when trying to determine Who Is My Employee?, there are different tests under different laws. Different tests can yield different results.

A recent court decision from Pennsylvania emphasizes this point. In the Keystone State (proud home of Dunder Mifflin and Hershey Park), contruction workers are considered employees for workers compensation purposes unless they (i) have a written contract, (ii) have a place of business separate from their general contractor’s site, and (iii) have liability insurance of at least $50,000. This strict test is courtesy of the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (CWMA), an Act whose name shows a disappointing lack of creativity.

I might have gone with “Construction Occupation Workers’ Act Regarding Designations In Classifying Employees” (COWARDICE) or “Law About Misclassifying Employees” (LAME) or, if I was hungry for shellfish, then maybe “Construction Law About Misclassification for Builders And Keeping Employees Safe” (CLAMBAKES).

Continue reading →