What is the Test for Joint Employment? It Depends.

Joint employment together

There are lots of ways to be together. Some are good, some less good.

Let’s compare:

  • By the end of the movie Grease, the graduates of Rydell High have decided that they “go together like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong.” That, I think, is supposed to mean good.
  • In The Fox and Hound 2, a direct-to-video DisneyToon generally rated as “not terrible,” our four-legged heroes sing that they “go together like wet dog and smelly peanut butter jelly fleas on my belly.” That sounds less good.

In employment law, being together can be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

When a company retains someone else’s employees to perform work, it sometimes becomes necessary to decide whether the first company is a “joint employer” of the second company’s employees. Being a joint employer is not illegal, but it means that if the primary employer violates employment laws, a “joint employer” is liable too — even if it wasn’t primarily responisble for the unlawful act.

The test for joint employment varies depending on which law was violated and depending on the state you’re in. (Here’s a map that illustrates the madness.) For example…

In this post we discussed how you determine if someone is a joint employer under federal wage and hour law (the Fair Labor Standards Act) (FLSA).

In these posts, we discussed how you currently determine whether someone is a joint employer under federal labor law (the National Labor Relations Act) (NLRA). In this post, we discuss how and when that test is likely to change.

In today’s post, we’ll examine how you determine whether someone is a joint employer under federal employment discrimination and breach of contract law. For these laws, the test for joint employment looks to the common law of agency.

A recent decision by the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reminds us that different tests apply to different laws. Applying the joint employment test for FLSA claims, the trial court had ruled that a citrus grower was the joint employer of migrant workers after the primary employer who hired them did not properly pay them.  (The farm-labor contractor who hired them allegedly demanded kickbacks from the migrant workers’ wages under threat of deportation. Today’s Tip: Don’t do that.)

The migrant workers had another claim too. They alleged breach of contract under federal law (the contract was part of the federal visa process), and it tried to sue both the farm-labor contractor who was demanding the kickbacks and the citrus grower at whose fields they picked delicious fruit.

For the breach of contract claim, the Court of Appeals ruled that the proper way to determine whether someone is a joint employer is to use a Right to Control Test.

There are different versions of Right to Control Tests, but they all try to determine whether a hiring party retains the right to control how the work is performed. If the answer is “yes they do,” then the hiring party is a joint employer under that law. If the answer is “no they don’t, they care about the achieving the result but not how the work is performed,” then the hiring party is not a joint employer.

This Court of Appeals decided that there are 7 factors that should be used to determine whether someone is a joint employer under federal breach of contract law. (The same test would generally apply to federal employment discrimination claims.) State laws may differ. Here are the 7 factors that this court used to determine whether someone is a joint employer under federal breach of contract law:

1. Does the alleged joint employer have the right to control how the work is performed?
2. Does the alleged joint employer provides the tools?
3. Is the work being performed at the worksite of the alleged joint employer?
4. Does the alleged joint employer provide employee benefits?
5. Does the alleged joint employer have the right to assign additional work?
6. Does the alleged joint employer have discretion over when and how long the workers work?
7. Is the work being performed a part of the alleged joint employer’s regular business?

In this case, applying the 7 factors, the Court of Appeals ruled that the citrus grower did not exert much control and therefore was not a joint employer for the breach of contract claim — even though it was a joint employer for the FLSA claim. (The FLSA uses an Economic Realities Test, not a Right to Control Test, to determine whether someone is an employer.) That’s right — different tests, different results.

The citrus grower did not want to be a joint employer because it was not part of the alleged kickback scheme and did not want to be held jointly responsible. Nonetheless, it was found to be a joint employer under the FLSA but not under the breach of contract claim. Confusing stuff.

When making music, being together seems so much simpler, although much more prone to nonsense words. Just ask the Turtles, who in 1969 were “so happy together Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba.”

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

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

Join 191 other followers

Arbitration Agreements Save Uber From Massive Class Action

uber victory arbitration agreements 2018

Two themes are often repeated in this blog: (1) Independent contractor relationships are under attack, and (2) there are a lot of things companies can do to protect themselves, but they need to be proactive, not wait until they get sued. I’ve also tried themes relating to song titles – like here (Led Zeppelin) and here (Tom Petty) – but that’s kind of not the point I’m trying to make right now.

These two themes came together nicely this week in a major ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Uber earned a big win, thanks to its arbitration agreements and a May 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming that mandatory arbitration agreements should be enforced.

Uber has been a favorite target of the plaintiffs’ bar in independent contractor misclassification lawsuits. Uber has been trying to defeat class claims by asking courts to enforce the mandatory arbitration agreements signed by most of its drivers.

That fight has been going on since 2013, when a federal court in California rejected Uber’s bid to enforce its arbitration agreements. The California judge certified a class of 160,000 drivers, then certified another subclass of drivers, creating a massive class action that Uber tried to settle for $100 million. The judge in that case rejected the settlement as too small, but Uber’s long game in court appears to have paid off.

After the judge rejected the proposed settlement, the case was to proceed; but, remember, the judge had also rejected Uber’s attempt to enforce the arbitration agreements, which would have kept the matter out of court entirely. If the arbitration agreements were enforced, the drivers would have to litigate their claims individually, one-by-one, with no individual driver’s claim worth all that much money. The attractiveness of these claims for plaintiffs’ lawyers is in the massive dollars generated by consolidating tens of thousands of individual claims into class actions. Individual arbitrations do not have much lure.

In this week’s Court of Appeals decision, the arbitration agreements were upheld as valid and enforceable. Uber will not have to face this class action of 160,000+ California drivers. The jackpot settlement of $100 million is gone, and the drivers who wish to go forward will now have to pursue their claims drip-drip-drip, one-by-one, with only small amounts of money at issue in each case.

This ruling became inevitable after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision in May 2018, which held that individual employee arbitration agreements are generally enforceable and do not violate workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had no choice but to rule that Uber’s arbitration agreements were indeed enforceable, overturning the district court judge’s 2013 decision that said they were not.

The plaintiffs tried to argue that since one of the lead plaintiffs opted out of arbitration, the entire potential class should be viewed as if everyone opted out of arbitration. But the Court was having none of that. A single class representative plaintiff doesn’t have the authority to cancel thousands of other contracts that he wasn’t a part of.

The lesson here is that arbitration agreements work. They are a potent weapon in defending against and preventing massive class action risks, especially for companies that rely heavily on independent contractors for their business model.

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

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

Join 191 other followers

 

Beware of Classwide Arbitration: Instacart Case Might Allow It

Instacart arbitration decision allowing class actions

Did that photo make you want to eat a pumpkin right now? (Probably not.)

🍿🍩🍰🍦🍨 Do these emojis make you hungry?

Does this one 🍺 make you wish the workday was over?

Fortunately for those who like instant gratification, driving services like Instacart promise to connect you with contractors who will go grocery shopping for you and will deliver the bounty to your house. This is not an ad for Instacart, though. This is a post about arbitration.

You see, like many other delivery app companies, Instacart’s drivers are independent contractors. Also like many other delivery app companies, Instacart gets sued for independent contractor misclassification. Wisely, Instacart has all contractors sign arbitration agreements.

One of the most significant benefits of arbitration agreements for companies is the opportunity to insert a clause that waives the right to bring any class/collective action claims. All claims must be brought individually — but only if that waiver language is clearly stated in the contract.

Instacart may have had an Oops!

In a pending case alleging independent contractor misclassification, the arbitrator has ruled (preliminarily) that the driver bringing the claim may bring a class/collective action. Instacart said, Whahhh?, and asked a California court to intervene and to rule that the arbitrator was overstepping his authority.

Arbitrators, though, are pretty well insulated from court review. That’s usually a plus, but it can also be a minus. For Instacart, it’s a minus here.

The California court ruled that it has no jurisdiction to intervene. It cannot review that preliminary decision by an arbitrator. Rather, a court can only review an arbitrator’s decision under very limited circumstances, mainly only after there has been an “award.” Instacart appealed but fared no better. The California Court of Appeals agreed.

The Court of Appeals, like the court below, ruled that the arbitrator’s decision to allow class arbitration is not an “award,” and the court cannot intervene. The arbitration must continue under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Only when the case is done will the court take a look.

This decision should serve as a reminder of two important points:

  1. In arbitration agreements with independent contractors, it is important to include a carefully drafted clause that waives the right to file or participate in a class or collective action. The clause should also state that the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to consider a class or collective action. These clauses need to be unambiguous.
  2. When parties agree to arbitrate, the arbitrator has a lot of power, and the preliminary rulings of an arbitrator are generally not subject to court review (except in limited circumstances). When you choose arbitration, you’re all in.

The case is in its very early stages, so we’ll see what happens. But there are some early lessons to be learned here. Congratulations. You made it to the end of the post. Now you can go eat.

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

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

Join 191 other followers

 

Is It Legal to Subcontract Out Union Work? (Ask a Song Title)

Subcontract union workI like similar but contradictory song titles. Pink Floyd has Wish You Were Here. But REO Speedwagon has Wish You Were There.

For one Puerto Rican company in the injection-molded products business, the message to its union was Wish You Were Gone (that’s Cosmo Pyke, 2017).  The company decided to outsource a portion of its injection mold production to a subcontractor but otherwise stayed in the business. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge.

The union won. The NLRB recently ruled that the company could not subcontract out work that had traditionally been performed by the union — at least not until the company had bargained over it and reached impasse. The Board ruled that once the union is performing a certain kind of work, a company’s decision to reconsider who performs this work is a mandatory subject of bargaining, so long as the company was remaining in the business. (The result likely would have been different if the company was getting out of that line of work.)

The Board noted that the company “remained an active participant in the production of injection-molded products, owned the machinery that manufactured the product, and continued to sell the product directly to the customers it served prior to its transfer of production to Alpla [the subcontractor].”

The moral of the story here is that — whether you wish the union were here, there, or gone — you need to bargain with it before subcontracting out its work. Exceptions may apply, depending on the facts and circumstances, but be cautious.

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

To nominate WhoIsMyEmployee.com for 2018 best ABA Blawgs, click here: http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/web100/
Thank you for your support! (Nominations close on Aug 7)

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

Join 191 other followers

 

Arbitration Agreements: Still the Hammer You Want in Your Toolbox

E39455E8-972A-4B73-BD7B-53AD1C29F259

If I had a hammer, I’d hammer in the morning. I’d hammer in the evening. All over this laa-aaand. That’s a lot of free labor for somebody. And noise. No one should hammer too late in the evening.

The song could describe a national network of independent contractors in the construction field. It doesn’t, but it could. (This is how I think now. Sad. Very sad.)

Thank you, Peter, Paul, and/or Mary for helping me introduce the real hammer for companies that use lots of independent contractors: Arbitration Agreements with Class Action Waivers.

The legitimacy of requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers is under scrutiny by the NLRB and will be the subject of an important upcoming Supreme Court ruling in the Epic Systems case. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides for employees, however, the Epic Systems decision is not likely to limit the use of arbitration agreements with class action waivers in independent contractor agreements.

A ruling this month by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals showed how useful these agreements can be for businesses. In a short decision, the Court ruled that two independent contractors wishing to bring a class action alleging independent contractor miscalssification were barred from doing so because they had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers. If they wanted to dispute their status, they had contractually agreed to do so only in arbitration, and only through an individual (not class) claim.

These agreements work. If they are well-drafted and include provisions that help make them fair to all parties, they are enforceable in most jurisdictions and can be an effective tool for keeping your business safe from independent contractor misclassification class actions.

Businesses that rely on independent contractor labor should consider using this tool in the morning and in the evening, all over this laa-aaand.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

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

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

Join 191 other followers

 

Arbitrator or Court: Who Decides Who Decides?

New prime v olioviera - who decides who decides

Who decides who decides? That’s as fun to write as it is to think about.

On TV, sometimes the parties agree that Judge Judy can decide. (Here’s how that works.) But sometimes, the parties disagree over who decides. What happens then? Who decides who decides?

That’s an issue the Supreme Court is going to consider, as it relates to arbitration agreements for independent contractors in the transportation industry.

The dispute stems from an arbitration agreement between Dominic Oliviera, an independent contractor (although he’s not so sure of that), and New Prime, Inc., a trucking company. Their arbitration agreement says that all disputes go to arbitration, including those about the scope of what gets arbitrated. In other words, the arbitrator gets to decide whether something is subject to arbitration. (That’s not an unusual clause, by the way.)

Our protagonist Mr. O tried to bring a lawsuit, claiming wage and hour violations by New Prime. In response, New Prime pointed to the contract and said the issue had to be arbitrated. Not to be outwitted, however, Mr. O then pointed to an exception in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA is the federal law favoring arbitration of disputes, but the FAA contains an exception. The FAA doesn’t apply to employees in the transportation industry.

I hope I haven’t bored you because here’s where it gets interesting.

If the FAA exception applies, Mr. O doesn’t have to arbitrate and he can go to court with his wage and hour claims instead.

But the exception only applies (it seems) if he is an employee. If he’s an independent contractor, the FAA should still apply, which means that New Prime can still force him into arbitration.

Now here’s where it gets really weird.

The agreement says that the arbitrator gets to decide whether the matter is subject to arbitration. But Mr. O says he’s an employee and therefore he’s not bound by the arbitration agreement. If he’s not bound by the arbitration agreement, then New Prime can’t force him to go to the arbitrator to decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. So, who decides who decides?

Still with me? Here’s the bottom line. There are two important questions that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider in this case:

(1) Whether a dispute over applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause; and
(2) whether the FAA’s Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to “contracts of employment,” is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

For businesses using mandatory arbitration agreements, these are important issues.

Last week, in this post, we addressed Issue #2. But Issue #1 is also pretty important for businesses with arbitration agreements in the transportation industry. If the validity of those agreements is contested, who decides whether they are valid?

If the arbitrator gets to decide what is subject to arbitration, the realist deep inside you (he’s roommates with the pessimist) expects that the arbitrator will keep the case. In other words, the most likely ruling by the arbitrator — who is paid by the parties by the hour to conduct the arbitration — is that the matter is going to be subject to arbitration. After all, that’s what the contract says, and if the contract didn’t apply, then the arbitrator never would have gotten involved in the first place.

This case won’t be decided until next year.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

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

Can You Require Independent Contractor Drivers to Sign Arbitration Agreements?

Arbitration agreementstranspiortation industry drivers new prime v oliviera coin tossHow do you want your disputes decided? State court? Federal court? Arbitrator? Coin toss?

Ok, probably not coin toss, but that method is still used to break ties in local elections. (Spoiler alert: It was heads.)

Lots of businesses using independent contractors rely on arbitration agreements (with class action waivers) as a way to protect against a claim of independent contractor misclassification. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers prevent large groups of contractors from joining together in court to file class action lawsuits.

Instead, they have to bring any claims on their own. That means much less money is at stake in any individual case, and much of the incentive for hungry plaintiffs’ lawyers to file these claims is gone. (So sad.)

When bound by an arbitration clause, some plaintiffs have pointed out that there is an exception under federal arbitration law that applies to transportation workers. The Federal Arbitration Act, which is the federal law favoring arbitration, doesn’t apply to employees in the transportation industry.

Most courts have said this exception applies only to employees, not to independent contractors. In other words, employees in the transportation industry might not have to arbitrate their claims, but independent contractors do.

A recent court of appeals decision, though, may have changed that. The First Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the FAA transportation worker exception applies to employees and independent contractors. If true, the implications for the gig economy could be massive. Independent contractor drivers are all over the transportation industry. (Some might not be in interstate commerce, but that’s a technical argument for court, not for a blog.) Uber, Lyft, FedEx. They have all switched to using mandatory arbitration agreement with their independent contractor drivers.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide this important issue in a case called New Prime Inc. v. Oliviera.

The Court just accepted the case last week, so we won’t have a ruling until next spring or summer, but this is an important case to watch for any business using independent contractors in the transportation industry. Will your arbitration agreements survive?

The issue accepted by the Supreme Court for review is:Whether the FAA’s Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to ‘contracts of employment,’ is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.”

Note for Supreme Court Watchers: This is a separate issue from the Epic Systems case already heard by the Supreme Court, which should be decided by this June. In Epic Systems, the issue is whether the National Labor Relations Act prohibits businesses from requiring their employees to sign mandatory arbitration with class action waivers. The issues are somewhat related, but distinct. Epic Systems deals with employees’ arbitration agreements; New Prime deals with independent contractors and is limited to the transportation industry.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

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