In 1979, my sister and I watched a kids’ movie called C.H.O.M.P.S., a “comic science fiction family film” (according to Wikipedia), which featured a Benji-lookalike border terrier named CHOMPS. Except the dog wasn’t really a terrier, and wasn’t even really a dog.
C.H.O.M.P.S. was an acronym for Canine Home Protection System, and the terrier was a robot [insert plot of every children’s movie here] invented by a brilliant kid, who then outsmarts bumbling adults who try to kidnap the dog but prove inept and not nearly as clever as our young hero.
The movie scores an abysmal 29% on Rotten Tomatoes and I don’t remember much about it, except that my sister and I still talk about it.
Although we’re all grown up now, we’re still overrun with acronyms. Two acronyms often appear in the context of retaining contingent labor, and if your company makes frequent use of temp staffing or other contingent workers, these may be good to know.
First, there’s MSP. An MSP is a Managed Service Provider. MSPs can manage many different things, but in the context of employment law and the contingent workforce, they can manage temporary staffing needs for a business. Generally, they will contract directly with multiple staffing agencies and taking the laboring oar in overseeing those relationships. MSPs can also identify and retain independent contractors. They will monitor spend and can produce all sorts of nifty reports. If your business uses an MSP, then when you need temp labor or other contingent workers, you tell the MSP what you’re looking for, and the MSP does the rest.
Next, there’s VMS. VMS stands for Vendor Management System. It is an online portal through which contingent workforce staffing needs can be arranged and managed. MSPs generally use VMSs, but a company can also use a VMS without an MSP.
When beginning a relationship with an MSP, sophisticated businesses will take a hand-on approach in negotiating the terms of service with the MSP, as well as negotiating (or providing) the form agreements that the MSP will enter into with staffing agencies and independent contractors. Your company is not a direct party to those agreements but, rather, is a third party beneficiary.
Those staffing agency agreements should generally include the same protections against joint employer liability that you’d include if you contracted with the staffing agency directly. Click here for Ten Things That Should Be in your Staffing Agency Agreements But Probably Aren’t.
You’ll also probably want all contingent workers retained through the MSP to sign arbitration agreements with classs action waivers, as well as individual agreements addressing the protection of your confidential information and ownership of any IP created during the assignment.
Bonus tip: Be careful not to say that all deliverables are “works made for hire.” Under some laws, including in California, declaring deliverables to be “works made for hire” automatically converts the relationship into employment. Bummer. Use assignment instead. You can read more about that topic here.
For companies that make frequent use of contingent labor, MSPs and VMSs can save a lot of time and aggravation. When engaging MSPs, it’s worth the up-front investment to renegotiate and modify the template agreements that the MSP will use on your company’s behalf.
If you’re later alleged to be a direct or joint employer of the contingent workers, well-drafted agreements will provide vital home protection — even better than you could get from C.H.O.M.P.S.
Bonus Fun Fact: Red Buttons was in this movie. It’s fun to say Red Buttons. Try it. Really. Say it aloud. But say it quietly in case someone is listening. You’ll like it and will probably keep saying it quietly to yourself all day, with a slight smile, because no one else is in on your little secret.
The Rolling Stones’ song, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” features the London Bach Choir and addresses the predominant themes of the 1960s — love, protest, and drugs. There’s some controversy as to whether Mr. Jimmy refers to vagrant Minnesotan Jimmy Hutmaker, who supposedly uttered the famous lyric-to-be during a chance 1964 encounter with Jagger at Bacon’s Drugstore, or Jimmy Miller, a record producer who also played drums on this track instead of Charlie Watts.
“You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is also a suitable theme for the main problem that dominates every aspect of independent contractor misclassification. The problems is that the laws are binary. A worker is either an employee who receives all of the protections of employment laws, or an independent contractor, who receives none. The exceptions creating a middle ground have been sparse.
But if you try sometimes.
California voters tried and succeeded in creating a middle ground in 2022, when they passed Prop 22. Prop 22 guarantees independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers if a series of conditions are met, and then the app companies are required to provide a range of protections for drivers, including minimum rates of pay, a health insurance stipend, accident insurance, sexual harassment prevention, safety training, and rest requirements.
Prop 22 was and is a model for the middle ground that has been missing.
But Prop 22 has also been under attack. In a case called Castellenos, the SIEU and other worker advocates have argued that Prop 22 violates the California constitution and had to be invalidated. Without Prop 22, rideshare and delivery drivers could be subjected to California’s ABC Test for determining drivers’ status.
As you may have read, a California Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Prop 22 did not violate the California Constitution and could take effect, except for one small part of the law governing future amendments. The dispute will likely be heard by the California Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.
The point I want to make, though, is that Prop 22 carves out a middle ground that should be a model for other states to follow. It guarantees workers certain protections while allowing them to operate their own businesses as independent contractors.
The unions and worker advocates calling for the protection of worker rights routinely ignore the surveys showing that a vast majority of drivers prefer independent contractor status. Much of the noise on this issue is coming from a vocal minority.
The Prop 22 model is a middle ground that provides workers with protections they otherwise lack, while allowing workers to retain their preferred independent contractor status and flexibility.
We’ll continue to watch whether the California Supreme Court decides to hear this dispute but, either way, Prop 22 should be held up as a model for other states to follow, carving out a middle ground that balances the concerns of all sides. Worker status does not have to be binary. Binary laws that mandate employee or independent contractor status, with no middle ground, do not reflect the realities of the modern gig economy.
It’s time for reform.
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.
The Rolling Stones’ song, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” features the London Bach Choir and addresses the predominant themes of the 1960s — love, protest, and drugs. There’s some controversy as to whether Mr. Jimmy refers to vagrant Minnesotan Jimmy Hutmaker, who supposedly uttered the famous lyric-to-be during a chance 1964 encounter with Jagger at Bacon’s Drugstore, or Jimmy Miller, a record producer who also played drums on this track instead of Charlie Watts.
“You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is also a suitable theme for the main problem that dominates every aspect of independent contractor misclassification. The problems is that the laws are binary. A worker is either an employee who receives all of the protections of employment laws, or an independent contractor, who receives none. The exceptions creating a middle ground have been sparse.
But if you try sometimes.
California voters tried and succeeded in creating a middle ground in 2022, when they passed Prop 22. Prop 22 guarantees independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers if a series of conditions are met, and then the app companies are required to provide a range of protections for drivers, including minimum rates of pay, a health insurance stipend, accident insurance, sexual harassment prevention, safety training, and rest requirements.
Prop 22 was and is a model for the middle ground that has been missing.
But Prop 22 has also been under attack. In a case called Castellenos, the SIEU and other worker advocates have argued that Prop 22 violates the California constitution and had to be invalidated. Without Prop 22, rideshare and delivery drivers could be subjected to California’s ABC Test for determining drivers’ status.
As you may have read, a California Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Prop 22 did not violate the California Constitution and could take effect, except for one small part of the law governing future amendments. The dispute will likely be heard by the California Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.
The point I want to make, though, is that Prop 22 carves out a middle ground that should be a model for other states to follow. It guarantees workers certain protections while allowing them to operate their own businesses as independent contractors.
The unions and worker advocates calling for the protection of worker rights routinely ignore the surveys showing that a vast majority of drivers prefer independent contractor status. Much of the noise on this issue is coming from a vocal minority.
The Prop 22 model is a middle ground that provides workers with protections they otherwise lack, while allowing workers to retain their preferred independent contractor status and flexibility.
We’ll continue to watch whether the California Supreme Court decides to hear this dispute but, either way, Prop 22 should be held up as a model for other states to follow, carving out a middle ground that balances the concerns of all sides. Worker status does not have to be binary. Binary laws that mandate employee or independent contractor status, with no middle ground, do not reflect the realities of the modern gig economy.
It’s time for reform.
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.
When I hear the name Lorena, my mind automatically goes back to 1993, which is probably true for many men about my age. That’s the year when Lorena Bobbitt brought a kitchen knife into the bedroom and cut off her husband John’s member while he was sleeping. She then tossed it in a field near the house, alerted police where to find it, and became an overnight celebrity for having taken revenge after years of alleged domestic abuse.
John later tried to cash in on the detachment, forming a band called The Severed Parts and appearing in two pornos called John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut and Frankenpenis.
It was a different Lorena who grabbed headlines last week, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether it’s unconstitutional to pass a law because of personal animus.
The law is California’s AB 5, and the Lorena is former California assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. As a quick refresher, AB 5 is the California law that imposed a hard-to-satisfy ABC Test for determining independent contractor status. Lorena Gonzalez, a driving force behind the bill, was vocal in her animus toward rideshare and delivery app companies.
In Olson v. California, the rideshare and delivery app companies sued to invalidate AB 5, arguing that the law contained dozens of exceptions targeted toward a grab bag of industries, and their exclusion from the list of exemptions was due to animus toward them, rather than reason.
This might have been a hard argument to make, but for Lorena. Congresswoman Gonzalez made frequent public statements against rideshare and delivery companies, claiming they mistreated workers by not classifying them as employees. Gonzalez said she was open to including exceptions in the bill, but not for these companies. The legislature then passed an exemption for other referral-based app businesses, but not rideshare or delivery, even though the business models are basically the same. A few other vocal lawmakers joined Gonzalez with similar public statements targeting the rideshare and delivery app companies. It’s the old familiar “[insert name] said the quiet part aloud” story.
Last week the Ninth Circuit ruled that personal animus is not a legit reason to pass a law. The Court wrote, “We are persuaded that these allegations plausibly state a claim that the ‘singling out’ of Plaintiffs effectuated by A.B. 5, as amended, fails to meet the relatively easy standard of rational basis review.” The Court was referring to the standard used for evaluating equal protection claims under the Constitution. It does not advance a governmental interest to pass a law out of a desire to harm a politically unpopular group of citizens.
The Court’s ruling did not overturn AB 5. The ruling sent the case back to the district court, which will have to reopen the case against AB 5.
For now the law remains in effect, and there is no immediate impact to businesses in California. But the fight to overturn AB 5 has fresh legs and some momentum.
In other words, businesses in California are still subject to the ABC Test — unless you’re a licensed insurance business or individual, physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, veterinarian, lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, accountant, registered securities broker-dealer or investment adviser, direct sales salesperson, commercial fisherman working on American vessels for a limited period, marketer, human resources administrator, travel agent, graphic designer, grant writer, fine artist, payment processing agent, still photographer or photo journalist, freelance writer, editor, or cartoonist, licensed esthetician, electrogist, manicurist, barber, cosmetologist, real estate licensee, repossession agent, recording artist, songwriter, lyricist, composer, proofer, manager of recording artists, record producer or director, musical engineer or mixer, vocalist, musician engaged in the creation of sound recording, photographer working on recording photo shoots or album covers, independent radio promoter, newspaper distributor working under contract with a newspaper publisher, newspaper carrier working under contract either with a newspaper publisher or newspaper distributor, contracting party in certain types of business-to-business relationships, or referral agency other than for rideshare or delivery — all of which are subject to possible exemptions.
And so you can see the point. The exemptions are a mishmosh created by special interests and lobbying efforts, with no coherent overall theme — except to make sure rideshare and delivery apps are subject to the ABC Test.
We’ll continue to follow this case. Meanwhile, if you’d like to read more about the original Lorena and the incident, there’s a Lifetime movie, an Amazon docuseries, and a whole bunch ofarticles.
As promised during the Master Class session last week, here are Ten Things That Should Be in Your Staffing Agency Agreements But Probably Aren’t.
There are still four Master Class sessions to go. The next one will be Tuesday at 2pm ET, covering the NLRB and the Uncertain State of Labor Law. There is no charge to participate. CLE and HR credits are available. You can register here.
When writing, precision is important. So is grammar. A missing comma can change the entire meaning of a sentence, as Ms. Ray’s possibly sautéed relatives can attest, once they have been sufficiently glazed and garnished.
When used properly, commas can separate multiple items in a series. And in the FTC’s proposed new noncompete rule, when it comes to defining “worker,” there are multiple items in a series.
So let’s get right to it: Would the FTC’s proposed rule prohibit non-competes with independent contractors?
Yes, if the independent contractor is a “natural person.”
The rule covers restrictions on individuals, not entities. The rule covers contracts with individuals, not entities. The rule would not affect non-competes with a single member LLC, if you contracted with the entity. You could still prevent the entity from competing since the entity is not a natural person. (At least, under the proposed version.)
But remember, a non-compete with an LLC probably would not prevent the individual from competing as an individual or under the banner of a different single member LLC. If the contract attempted to restrict the individual too, the proposed rule would likely apply to that restriction.
Here’s how the proposed rule defines worker — with lots of commas:
(f) Worker means a natural person who works, whether paid or unpaid, for an employer. The term includes, without limitation, an employee, individual classified as an independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or sole proprietor who provides a service to a client or customer.
There are a few other things you need to know.
What would be prohibited? The rule would prohibit employers from:
entering into or attempting to enter into a noncompete with a worker;
maintaining a noncompete with a worker; or
representing to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.
The rule would also require an employer to rescind existing noncompetes and provide individual notice to each worker with a noncompete that it’s no longer active.
Will the rule go into effect? I doubt it.
The FTC will almost certainly pass the rule, or a similar version of the rule, after the public comment period expires. But the rule will then get blocked by the courts as an overreach of the FTC’s authority. Under several legal doctrines, including the major questions doctrine recently adopted by the Supreme Court, a nationwide ban on non-competes is almost certainly action that only could only be taken through Congressional legislation, not by an agency.
What should companies do regarding noncompetes with their independent contractors?
First of all, in most cases you shouldn’t have noncompetes with independent contractors. If the contractor is working on something proprietary and confidential, then maybe. But ordinarily, you should think of your contractor as an independent business that is free to compete in the marketplace. A non-compete clause in an independent contractor agreement could be used to argue that the contractor is misclassified, since non-competes are more characteristic of an employment relationship.
Second, this proposed rule provides another reason that it’s generally best practice is to contract with an entity, not an individual.
Third, I probably wouldn’t do anything right now. Let’s see how this develops. While I expect states to continue to pass legislation that bans or restricts the use of noncompetes, I do not believe the FTC has the same authority. I do not expect this rule ever to take effect. For more Q&As about the proposed rule, click here.
But Todd, what about the songs?
Some of you have reached out to tell me you like the 70s and 80s song references. For today, I would recommend Comma Chameleon by Culture Club, Comma Get Your Love by Redbone, and Comma Eileen by Dexy’s Midnight Runners. You’re welcome.
A Swedish company has constructed airbag jeans for motorcyclists, designed to inflate for protection in the event of a crash. The denim-like fabric is water-repellent and abrasion-resistant. You can learn more here.
When riding a motorcycle, it’s smart to anticipate the possibility of injury. The same is true when engaging temps from a staffing agency.
Here’s what I mean. At some point, you’ll have a temp who requires reasonable accommodations for disabilities. The expense to accommodate might be small. But it might not be. Who pays for it, you or the staffing agency?
Last week, the EEOC announced a $119,000 settlement with a staffing company that rejected an applicant because of disabilities. The applicant, who is deaf, had been placed at a client. Before the applicant was to appear for work, a manager at the staffing agency cancelled the assignment, informing the applicant that the client did not have sign language interpreters available. The client, incidentally, was ready and willing to employ the applicant.
The EEOC’s news release doesn’t say whether the applicant actually needed an ASL interpreter or whether the client was planning to pay for one. But providing an ASL interpreter can be a reasonable accommodation. In a staffing agency relationship, who pays for reasonable accommodations needed by temps?
The best advice here is to plan ahead and put on those airbag jeans. Your contract with the staffing agency can address who pays for reasonable accommodations. All it takes is a short clause in the agreement. If the agency is paying, make sure there’s no markup on those expenses. Few staffing agency agreements address who pays for reasonable accommodations. But they should.
If you add a clause, differentiate between Title I and Title III obligations. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination in employment. That’s the one you want to focus on. Title III of the ADA addresses public accessibility. You’ll pay for the wheelchair ramps and accessible doorways at your facility (Title III), but you may be able to shift the expenses of Title I compliance to the agency.
It’s also a good idea to make sure managers know to involve HR if disability or accommodation issues arise. You don’t want a manager saying “we can’t accommodate that” and ending a temp’s assignment.
Airbag jeans will be sold for $499 a pair. Reasonable accommodations may cost more. Either way, it’s smart to plan ahead and build protections in to your staffing agency agreement.
On March 7, I’ll be speaking at the 10th Annual Labor Relations and Employment Law Master Class Series, addressing recent developments in the contingent workforce area. I’ll be addressing joint employment and staffing agency relationships, and I plan to offer a list of ten items that should be in your staffing agency agreements but probably aren’t
Sign up here to learn more. There is no charge to attend the webinar.
In Inner Mongolia, these sheep have been walking in a circle for about two weeks, with a few sheep occasionally standing in the middle. Here’s video.
Various theories have been circulating to try to explain the odd behavior, including that it may be some sort of bacteria-induced delirium.
But I think I know the real reason. (And a hearty Mazel Tov! to the wooly couple!)
When drafting independent contractor agreements, it’s never a good idea to be unsure of why you’re doing something. Too often, businesses use generic agreements and don’t understand the impact or purpose of what they’ve written.
One common place I see mistakes is in the very beginning of contracts – the contractual recitals.
Recitals are often used to provide context for the reader. Recitals are also used for six-year old piano players to play chopsticks for grandma, but that’s for another day. For example, an off-the-shelf independent contractor agreement might start with something like this: We’re in the business of doing X, and we are retaining Contractor to do this part of X. Therefore, the parties agree to the following terms.
The problem with that innocent sounding recital is that it may be evidence the contractor is misclassified.
Under a Strict ABC Test, if the work being performed by the contractor is within the hiring party’s usual course of business, the contractor is automatically considered an employee. That fact fails prong B of a strict ABC Test.
Under an Economic Realities Test or a Right to Control Test, one of the factors often considered is often whether the work being performed is “an integral part” of the business, or some variation on that theme. Unlike ABC Tests, these tests are balancing tests and so one factor will not necessarily determine a worker’s classification, but there’s no reason to give the factor away, especially in a contract recital.
In a misclassification challenge, every fact and contract term will be subject to scrutiny.
If you’re unsure whether the term is needed, then question whether to include it. Recitals generally aren’t needed at all, and I often omit them from my independent contractor agreements. Don’t include off-the-shelf terms if you don’t understand their effect.
Unexplainable behavior makes for good blog posts and tweets, but not good contracts.
Which is why I never ask unfamiliar sheep to help me draft contracts.
The world’s dirtiest man died last month at the (ripe) age of 94, having reportedly going 60 years without bathing. Covered in soot and living in a cinder-block shack, the Iranian hermit was known for eating roadkill, smoking a pipe filled with animal excrement, and believing that cleanliness would make him ill.
The newest dirtiest man alive may be this guy in India, who as of 2009 hadn’t bathed in a mere 35 years. Instead of water, this man of the people opts for a “fire bath,” in which he lights a bonfire, smokes marijuna and stands on a leg praying to Lord Shiva. The man told a reporter from the Hindustan Times, “Fire bath helps kill all the germs and infections in the body.” Of course it does.
Sometimes when we settle lawsuits, we also feel dirty. Maybe not that dirty, but at least icky. It feels wrong to pay money to a plaintiff when we feel the other party doesn’t deserve it. But settlements are often driven by factors other than the merits of a claim, such as business conditions or considerations other than purely financial.
In independent contractor misclassification cases, a settlement is sometimes the only way to ensure that a lawsuit does not result in forced reclassification of workers. In a settlement, the parties can agree upon terms, including financial payments, without conceding that anyone was misclassified and without requiring a reclassification going forward.
That is what happened in a recent case involving A Place for Rover, which is an app-based gig economy company that connects dog walkers with dog owners.
In May 2021, the app company won summary judgment in a misclassification dispute. The company argued that dog walkers were independent contractors, not employees, even under California law. The company argued that it could satisfy each prong of the ABC Test and that, regardless, it was a referral service under California law, which would exempt it from the ABC Test usually used in California to determine whether a worker is an employee. The company urged the court instead to analyze the classification dispute using the S.G. Borello balancing test, not an ABC Test.
The district court did not reach a conclusion on whether the company was a referral service and instead determined that the ABC Test was satisfied. The court ruled that dog walkers controlled their own work, routes, and prices, making them legitimate independent contractors.
But the plaintiff appealed, and the company may have feared that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would revive the case and send it to trial. Instead of taking a chance on a bad outcome, the company settled.
By settling, the company pays money to avoid the risk of a judgment that the dog walkers were employees, an outcome that would likely render the company’s business model no longer viable. The company’s decision makers probably felt a little dirty, paying any money at all after having won at the district court level. That is not a surprising outcome, even if they felt strongly about their case. Because the stakes are so high in misclassification litigation, that’s often how these cases conclude. Icky but sometimes necessary.
But at least in litigation, afterwards you can take a bath.
Zippy practices for the 13th Annual Lying Down Championships
Lying down in the face of a challenge is rarely a good strategy. I did, however, find one exception.
A man from Montenegro recently won the 12th Annual Lying Down Championships, beating out nine other competitors by remaining horizontal under a tree for 60 hours. As a reward for his (lack of) effort, he received 350 euros, lunch for two at a restaurant, a weekend stay at a local village, and a rafting trip.
Then things got weird. Local media reported that shortly after the competition, the winner was taken into police custody for (allegedly) physically attacking journalists and damaging the headquarters of a newspaper that called him “the biggest swindler in all of Montenegro.”
I suppose there’s a lesson in here somewhere: Offer a man an award and he’ll lie still for 60 hours, but call him a swindler and he won’t take that lying down.
But I digress. In this post, I want to share some tips gleaned from a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case involving prong C of the ABC Test. The case also serves as a reminder never to take a misclassification audit lying down.
The dispute involved East Bay, a drywall installation company that used independent contractor drywall installers for residential jobs. Until 2013, the company treated its installers as employees. It then switched to an independent contractor model. Risky move. This sparked an audit.
The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development wanted to know why this company, which was still active, suddenly lacked employees. The audit looked at the individuals who continued to install drywall and examined whether, under New Jersey’s ABC Test, they were independent contractors or employees.
You can guess what happened next. The Department found that 16 installers were misclassified, and it issued a hefty back assessment against the company for failing to pay into the state unemployment fund. The company appealed and lost.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion focused largely on what it takes to prove prong C of the ABC Test — that the individual “is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.” (You can read more about New Jersey’s ABC Test here, but otherwise I am going to assume that readers are familiar with the basic concept of the ABC Test.)
The drywall company put forth evidence that the independent contractors had registered business entities and certificates of insurance. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that wasn’t enough to satisfy prong C. This evidence wasn’t enough to prove that the individuals truly operated independently. Evidence in support of prong C should demonstrate that the independent contractor would not become unemployed if the work from this company went away.
The Court gave some examples of evidence that would have been more persuasive in satisfying prong C, including:
That the IC’s business will continue when this engagement ends;
That the IC’s business is stable and lasting, or other evidence of longevity;
That the IC has other customers;
That the IC has other sources of revenue, and the company being audited is not the primary source of income for the IC;
That the IC provides the tools, equipment, vehicles, and other resources needed to perform the work;
That the IC has telephone listings or business stationery;
That the IC advertises;
That the IC has its own employees;
That the IC maintains inventory;
That the IC bears the risk of loss;
That the IC benefits from the goodwill generated from a job well done;
That the IC is required to maintain educational and licensure requirements;
That the IC is permitted to obtain work from other businesses; and
That the IC in fact performs work for other businesses.
The court cited these as examples of the types of evidence that would have been helpful to prove prong C. This is not a mandatory list. The point here was just that business registrations and certificates of insurance were not enough. Strategically, there is other evidence that would be helpful too, and there are steps that can be taken when retaining ICs to help build a defense. I maintain a longer list but, hey, I can’t give away all the secrets here.
Other observations from the New Jersey Supreme Court decision:
1. How to invite an audit. Switching from an employee model to an independent contractor model is, by itself, enough to prompt an audit.
2. An ominous footnote about prong B. There was also a dispute in this case over the meaning of prong B. Remember, New Jersey has a standard ABC Test, which allows prong B to be satisfied by showing either the work is outside the hiring party’s usual course of business or the work is performed outside of the places of business of the hiring party. (This is different than the California version of the ABC Test.) All drywall installation work was performed at customers’ residences. After the audit, the Commissioner of Labor found (inexplicably) that prong B was not satisfied. It is unclear from the opinion whether that was based on a conclusion that the customers’ residences were East Bay’s places of business or was based on some other fact, such as some kind of work being done at East Bay’s place of business. If the Commissioner believed customer’s residences to be East Bay’s places of business, then it is hard to see how the latter part of prong B could ever be satisfied. But the NJ Supreme Court did not consider prong B in its decision. The Court ruled that prong C was not satisfied, and so it chose not to wade into the morass of prong B.
But there is an ominous footnote. When the Court declined to consider prong B, it noted that in its prior decisions, the place of business meant locations where the hiring party had a “physical plant or conducts an integral part of its business.” That’s consistent with common sense and would exclude a customer’s residence. The Court then, however, invited the Department of Labor to issue regulations explaining how the Department thinks prong B should be interpreted. Yikes!
3. You need to fight unemployment claims by ICs at the initial audit level; you can’t expect a court to save you on appeal. Courts will defer to the findings of an agency if its factual findings have any support in the record, no matter how flimsy. In other words, the agency can be wrong in its overall weighing of the factors, but a court is supposed to affirm the agency’s decision if there’s evidence to support it. Not “a preponderance of evidence” or “ample evidence” or even “sufficient evidence.” Just “evidence.” Folks, the reason we have trials is because there’s almost always at least some evidence on both sides, even if the preponderance of the evidence leans the other way. You shouldn’t have to pitch a shutout to win the game.
I have seen the same deference standard applied to unemployment decisions in New York and Ohio. The courts defer to the agencies. It is unfair. The result can be that the agency’s decision gets affirmed, even if it made the objectively wrong decision.
This unfair standard highlights how important it is to win at the earliest stages in an unemployment claim, if independent contractor status is being challenged. The initial investigation is your best chance to defend independent contractor status. If you wait, it’s too late. Provide the auditor your best evidence on every factor, and don’t hold back.
Remember the consequences too. If one contractor is misclassified, the agency will likely deem all other similarly situated contractors to be misclassified, and you’ll be on the hook for unpaid assessments for all of them. The stakes are high. Companies using independent contractors should spend the time and money to mount a full defense of their contractor’s status at the audit stage. It’s worth the investment, especially because the state courts will generally defer to the agency’s findings, even if the agency is wrong.
Here’s the ultimate takeaway: If you’ve entered a Lying Down Competition, it’s ok to lie down for as long as you want. But if you’re faced with a worker classification audit, or a 1099 audit, or an unemployment claim by a former independent contractor, do not take that lying down.
You need to fight hard in the audit, producing evidence to support independent contractor status. You’ll have the right to appeal if you lose, but don’t expect a fair chance to prove your case. You’ve got to do your best to win any classification dispute at the initial audit. That’s the time to retain counsel and invest time and resources. If you lose the audit and bring an appeal, you’re fighting a steep uphill climb.
Who Is My Employee? 