Michael Jackson Says: Be Sure Your Subcontractor Agreements Require Adequate Insurance

Insuracne subcointractor agreement independent contractor clauses agreements IMG_1096The Michael Jackson song, “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough” has all kinds of lyrics I can’t understand. No matter how many times I listen to that song, most of it sounds unclear to me, like nonsense syllables.

The one part of the song that is clear, though, is the title. That one phrase is repeated over and over. Leaving aside (for now) the unintelligible parts of the song, the King of Pop unwittingly provided a good lesson on insurance clauses for subcontractor agreements.

(Note to readers: I looked up the real lyrics, and they have nothing to do with subcontractor agreements or insurance clauses, but they might as well since I still can’t understand them.)

Subcontractor agreements typically include an indemnification requirement and an insurance requirement. The subcontractor is required to indemnify your business against certain types of claims and must require sufficient insurance to cover those claims.

But how much insurance is enough?

That varies, of course, depending on the scope of the engagement and the responsibilities undertaken by the subcontractor. But don’t leave the amount and types of coverage to the subcontractor’s discretion.

Types of required insurance often include general commercial liability, automobile, and workers compensation coverage. Minimum amounts, though, should be specified. It does you no good to have a contractual agreement for indemnification if the subcontractor lacks the financial backing to pay up. You may end up with a bankrupt contractor and a worthless indemnification agreement.

I often see $1 million or $2 million per occurrence for general commercial liability. Workers compensation clauses often refer to “statutory limits,” but some states, like Texas, do not have statutory coverage requirements, so the term “statutory limits” in Texas might be meaningless.

Provide some specific requirements for coverage amounts and don’t stop til you get enough.

Now about the song, did you know these are actual lyrics?

  • Keep on with the force, don’t stop.
  • I was wondering, you know, if you could keep on, because the force it’s got a lot of power.
  • I’m melting (I’m melting) like hot candle wax.

Sounds like a tribute to the Star Wars exhibit at Madame Tussaud’s.

© 2017 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.

Are Non-Compete Agreements for Independent Contractors Enforceable?

binding-contract-independent contractor non-compete agreement noncompetition - 948442_1920If you could ask me one question about independent contractors and non-compete agreements, what would it be?

  • Are they enforceable?
  • Are they a good idea?
  • A bad idea?

Hey buddy, that’s three questions, not one.

As for enforceability, that will vary state by state. A recent federal decision involving an independent sales contractor found his non-compete agreement to be unenforceable. The court found that (1) it was not reasonably necessary to protect the company’s business, and (2) the burden on the sales contractor was out of proportion to the benefit to the business. The decision applied Iowa law, though, so unless you have contractors in the Hawkeye State, you might not really care.

Each state applies a somewhat different test for determining whether non-competes are enforceable. Some states, like California, will not enforce them at all (at least with respect to employees). Other states are much more likely to allow them.

Perhaps the better question, for those keeping score on Quality of Questions, is whether non-competes with contractors are a good idea.

In many cases, they are not. Non-competes may increase the risk of a misclassification finding. Remember, independent contractors are in business for themselves. In the Independent Contractor vs. Employee analysis, a persuasive factor in favor of contractor status is the freedom to work for others, including for competitors.

In other words, demanding a loyalty pledge from your contractor may backfire. The clause might not only be unenforceable, but it might cause the contractor to be deemed an employee.

There may be situations where a non-compete seems necessary. Perhaps the contractor is given access to confidential and proprietary information. If that’s the case, be sure your contractor signs an NDA. If an NDA is not going to provide enough protection and you need a non-compete clause, then the non-compete provision should be drafted as narrowly as possible. Consider allowing the contractor to work for competitors generally, perhaps prohibiting only certain limited types of competing behavior.

Also consider whether your relationship with the contractor — in which the contractor gains access to confidential information, cannot share it, cannot use it elsewhere, and cannot work for competitors — is properly classified as a contractor relationship at all. If protecting and controlling what the contractor does is so important to your business, the contractor may be more appropriately classified as an employee.

Non-competition agreements with contractors are not necessarily unenforceable, and they are not necessarily a nail in the coffin of misclassification. But any time you are thinking of using a non-compete agreement with an independent contractor, think carefully.

The clause might be unenforceable, which is bad enough, but the existence of the clause itself — whether enforceable or not — could also be considered evidence that the contractor is really an employee.

© 2017 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.

Appeals Court Slams NLRB Joint Employer Finding in Landmark CNN Case, But Ruling May Prove Hollow

NLRB CNN joint employment Browning-Ferris overrule Second Circuit Court of Appeals IMG_1094A federal Court of Appeals has ruled that the NLRB cannot abruptly change its definition of joint employment without sufficient explanation. This decision (the CNN case) rebukes the NLRB for its initial attempt, in 2014, to expand the definition of joint employment.

This decision does not, however, address the Browning-Ferris case that followed in 2015, in which the Board similarly expanded the definition of joint employment but, that time, with an expansive explanation and justification for doing so. Browning-Ferris in on appeal too.

Here’s what happened.

Back in the good old days, when TV was pure and the world had not yet been exposed to Janet Jackson’s halftime nipple, CNN used to contract with an outside company who supplied technicians for its TV production. CNN’s camera operators, sound technicians, and broadcast engineers were employees of a third party, and they were represented by a union.

In late 2003, just a few months before that fateful Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, CNN decided to bring that work in house. It set up a hiring and interview process and then directly hired its own technicians, severing its ties with the third party.

That made the union mad.

The union claimed the decision was motivated by anti-union animus and filed an unfair labor practice charge. The NLRB ultimately agreed with the union, determined that CNN was a joint employer of the third party technicians, and therefore had to respect the union status of the technicians. CNN could not hit the reset button without bargaining.

There was more to the decision too, with findings of anti-union statements by supervisors and a question about whether CNN was a successor employer (which is not the same thing as being a joint employer), but for our purposes, let’s focus on the joint employment piece.

Before the Board’s CNN decision, the legal standard for joint employment under the NLRB (remember, different laws have different standards) required “direct and immediate control.” In the CNN decision, the Board inexplicably abandoned that standard and ruled that two separate entities are joint employers of a single workforce if they “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.”

“Share or codetermine” is much looser than “direct and immediate control.” Think of your teenage children. You may try to “share and codetermine” whether they have a party at your house when you are out of town on business, but you have no “direct and immediate control” over the matter. At least not while it happens. (Purely hypothetical. My kids didn’t do this. Kids, if you are reading, DON’T do this!)

This case has been crawling through the courts for years, but finally last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRB could not simply switch the test without explaining itself. On that basis alone, the Court rejected the conclusion that CNN was a joint employer of the third party technicians.

So what does this mean for Browning-Ferris and the vastly expanded definition of joint employment that the Board instituted in that case?  Unfortunately, nothing.

In contrast to the CNN case, the Board’s Browning-Ferris decision included a lengthy and expansive discussion of the joint employer standard and why the Board — like in Sympathy for the Devil, “saw it was a time for a change.”

The Browning-Ferris case is also on appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the same appellate court that just issued this decision) but will be heard by a different panel of three judges. A decision in that case is expected in the next several months.

For now, the Browning-Ferris standard — that indirect control is enough to demonstrate joint employment — remains the standard used by the NLRB.

© 2017 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.

Stop the Leaks! What if White House Staffers Were Independent Contractors?

Sessions stop the leaks independent contractorsTrump and Sessions wants to prosecute the leakers. As we’ve seen before, stopping leaks can become a Presidential obsession. In Nixon’s White House, the Plumbers were tasked with stopping leaks of classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers. Through the Committee to Re-Elect the President (fittingly, CREEP), members of the Plumbers broke into the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, who had released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. Some of you may have heard about what happened next.

Presidential aides and White House staffers routinely have access to information that is intended to remain confidential. Businesses face the same issue. A company’s employees often have access to confidential or trade secret information that would be harmful in the hands of competitors, or that could damage the business if released to the general public.

It’s commonplace to require employees in such positions to sign Nondisclosure Agreements (NDAs).  NDAs typically define the scope of confidential information and require employees to refrain from using or disclosing any of it outside of work.

But what about independent contractors? Non-employees like specialists or consultants are often retained to work on sensitive company projects. In the course of that work, they are often granted access to confidential information.

Should independent contractors sign NDAs too? You bet! If they will be granted access to confidential or trade secret information, NDAs are important.

They can be used in a stand-alone agreement or as part of a broader independent contractor agreement containing other terms.

It is arguably even more important to have a contractor sign an NDA than it is for an employee to be required to sign one. Why?

Employees, by their nature, are agents of the company and are presumed to be acting to further the employer’s interests. NDAs are a useful reminder to employees of their obligations to the employer, and NDAs can expand — by contract — the scope of protection offered by trade secret laws.

Independent contractors, in contrast, are in business for themselves. They are generally not agents of the business, and any obligation they have to preserve confidential information will stem mainly from contractual obligations, rather than from trade secret law.

In fact, trade secret laws generally require a company to prove that it takes steps to safeguard the privacy of trade secret information — that is, steps to prevent other people from accessing it. By sharing trade secrets with a non-employee contractor, the company may — through that act alone — risk losing trade secret protection for their confidential business information.  They’ve shared it outside the company.

That is where NDAs come in. If a contractor is required to sign an NDA as a condition of the retention, then the employer can much more confidently share confidential and trade secret information with the contractor.

The NDA not only creates a contractual obligation on the contractor to preserve the secrecy of the information, but it also bolsters the company’s ability to show that it takes active steps to protect its confidential information. In other words, the NDA helps the business show that it does not tell an outsider its trade secrets without first obtaining a signed NDA.

The lesson here is simple. If your independent contractor will be granted access to confidential information — even incidentally or accidentally — NDAs can provide important protections to the business.

If the contractor leaks the information anyway, you can always find some goons to break into the office of the contractor’s psychiatrist to get some dirt on him.  (That was a joke. Don’t do that!) Legal remedies are available. Don’t break into anyone’s office. Please.

© 2017 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.

NYC Freelancer Law & New Rules Now In Effect, But New Rules Could Violate Federal Law

new york city freelancer law new rulesIf you retain freelancers in New York City, pay attention.

As we wrote here, NYC’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act requires a written agreement when retaining an individual independent contractor, if the value of services is $800 or more. The law covers any individual non-employee, including nannies and babysitters. (Loyal readers, please read this earlier post for details.)

The law took effect May 15, 2017, but new rules — effective July 24, 2017 — create additional burdens.

The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs has published final rules implementing the Act. While the purpose of the rules is (supposedly) to clarify the Act, the Rules go much further and create new requirements — some of which may be contrary to federal law.

For example, the Rules prohibit class action waivers and prohibit arbitration agreements. That’s not in the original law. It also may be against federal law. As the Supreme Court recently ruled, state laws that prohibit arbitration of certain types of claims are in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act. (The Supreme Court will soon decide whether class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements are impermissible under the National Labor Relations Act, but that’s an entirely different issue, which requires the court to reconcile two federal laws — as opposed to conflicting federal and state/local laws. Read more here.)

The Rules also provide an absurdly expansive definition of retaliation, including creating an automatic violation for “any person who denies a work opportunity to a freelance worker who exercises or attempts to exercise any right guaranteed under the Freelance Isn’t Free Act ….” Note what’s missing here:  the word “because.”

Unless this is a drafting error (which is very possible), the Rules say it’s retaliation if you stop working with a freelancer after the freelancer complains or exercises certain rights — even if the decision to stop using the freelancer had nothing to do with the protected activity. I suspect the Rule will be interpreted as if there is a causation requirement, but Rules really should be drafted more carefully. The whole point of writing Rules that interpret laws is to add clarity, not add confusion!

The Rules also say:

  • The Act applies regardless of the worker’s immigration status;
  • Retaliation, which is prohibited, can include perceived threats to the worker’s immigration status or work authorization;
  • Anyone who retains a nanny or babysitter for at least three years must provide the freelancer with free tickets to Hamilton.

Ok, I made up that last bullet point.

The rest of this is true, though; so if you are using individual freelancers in New York City, pay attention. These requirements apply to businesses retaining freelancers and to individuals retaining freelancers.

© 2017 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.

Avoid this ADA Trap When Using Staffing Agency Workers

ADA staffing agency reasonable accommodation ambulance-2166079_1280ADA Quick Quiz: Your company uses staffing agency workers. A staffing agency worker discloses a medical need and asks for a reasonable accommodation — maybe a computer screen reading program, or an ergonomic chair, or a modified work schedule.

1. Which company must have the interactive conversation to determine what reasonable accommodation is appropriate?

(A) Your company
(B) The staffing agency
(C) Both

2. Which company is obligated to provide the reasonable accommodation?

(A) Your company
(B) The staffing agency
(C) Both

3. Which company is obligated today for the reasonable accommodation?

(A) Your company
(B) The staffing agency
(C) Both

Answers: Continue reading

Avoid this Common But Disastrous Mistake in Staffing Agency Agreements

staffing services mistake-1966448_1920

A client once asked me to review the Employment Agreement of a candidate they were considering hiring. The candidate had recently been terminated but his Employment Agreement contained a 12-month non-compete, and my client’s job offer seemed pretty clearly to be for a competing job.

But the terminating employer made once huge mistake. When it meant to terminate employment, instead it terminated the agreement … and with it, the non-compete.  Oops!

I see the same mistake in Staffing Agreements and Professional Services Agreements all the time.

These agreement are usually intended to serve as Master Service Agreements (MSA), with additional work orders to govern the actual services to be provided. These MSAs contain very important clauses that are intended to survive, even after the services have stopped. Examples of clauses intended to survive the termination of services include indemnification, insurance coverage, preservation of confidential information, and right to audit.

The mistake I see over and over, however, is the inclusion of a termination clause that allows for termination of the agreement, not merely termination of services.

Continue reading