What is the Test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee? (Jan. 2019)

what is the test for independent contractor misclassificationSeems like a simple question, but it isn’t. My question to your question is, “Why do you ask?” That’s because the test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee is different under different laws.

And worse, the tests keep changing, as we saw in Monday’s post about the NLRB’s SuperShuttle decision.

As of today, January 31, 2019, here’s where we stand:

The current tests for determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee are:

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

Right to Control Test (SuperShuttle version, as of 1/25/19)

Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), ERISA

Right to Control Test (Darden version, or some variant of it, as applied circuit by circuit)

Internal Revenue Service

Right to Control Test (IRS version)

Affordable Care Act

Right to Control Test (emphasis on particular factors, based on regulation)

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Economic Realities Test (which different courts articulate differently)

California, Massachusetts wage & hour laws

ABC Tests (strict version of Part B)

New Jersey wage & hour

ABC Test (regular version of Part B)

California state laws other than wage & hour

S.G. Borello & Sons Test (customized hybrid version of Right to Control & Economic Realities Tests), we think, for now

State Unemployment and Workers Comp Laws

Pick a card, any card. Tests vary substantially state to state. Some are Right to Control Tests, some are ABC Tests, some are entirely made-up, customized tests that require consideration of — or proof of — specific factors

Other State Laws (wage & hour, discrimination, tax)

Tests vary significantly state by state, law by law

This chart may be a helpful start, but three significant challenges remain, when trying to determine Independent Contractor vs. Employee.

  1. Fifty Shades of Gray.  These tests, for the most part, are balancing tests. Courts and agencies must weigh multiple factors. In most instances, some factors will favor contractor status and some will favor employee status. Different courts may reach different conclusions, even with the same facts.
  2. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Multi-state employers face the added challenge of having to deal with different tests in different states. Then, just to keep everyone on their toes, states generally apply different tests for different state laws. Sometimes different tests apply in different industries too. Transportation workers, for example, may be subject to different tests than construction workers.
  3. Into the Wild. The tests keep changing. In January 2019, the NLRB changed its test in the SuperShuttle case. In 2018, California changed its test under state wage and hour law from the S.G. Borello balancing test to a strict ABC Test. In 2015, New Jersey switched to a different version of an ABC Test for its state wage and hour law. The times they are a-changin.

What to do about it? (Free tips!)

  1. Know the tests that apply where your business operates.
  2. Construct your independent contractor relationships in a way that tends to favor the factors supporting independent contractor status. Inevitably, business considerations will get in the way, and tough decisions will have to be made about how much control can be relinquished and how the relationships need to be structured. Adjust the facts of the relationship.
  3. Use a customized independent contractor agreement that emphasizes the factors that support independent contractor status. Avoid off-the-shelf agreements. Merely reciting that everyone agrees the relationship is an independent contractor relationship is only a teeny bit helpful. “Teeny bit helpful” is not the gold standard.
  4. Re-evaluate existing relationships, and make changes from time to time.
  5. Implement a gatekeeper system to prevent operations managers from entering into contractor relationships that may be invalid. Require any retention of a contractor to be approved by a point person, who can issue spot and seek help in evaluating whether a contractor relationship is likely to withstand a misclassification challenge.
  6. Seek legal help before you get audited or sued. Now is the time to review and modify relationships to reduce the likelihood of a misclassification claim. Once a claim is made, your business can only play defense. Create your playbook now, before the defense has to take the field.

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Philadelphia on Feb. 26 or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

© 2019 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.

2018_Web100Badge

 

DOL: Association Health Plans Are Not Evidence of Joint Employment

451DCB77-A195-4A4F-A846-E9E47C59AA02

For some conditions, medical treatment will not help. For example, in 1979, Robert Palmer had “a bad case of lovin’ you” and no pill was gonna cure his ill. It is unknown whether this condition ever cleared up. At last report, Palmer had become addicted to love.

For those with conditions where pills can cure ills, or for those (like Huey Lewis?) who just want a new drug, medical coverage can be important. A new DOL rule allows small businesses to participate in Association Health Plans without exposing themselves to joint employer liability.

An Association Health Plan (AHP) is a group health plan that allows small employers to band together to purchase the types of coverage that are available to large employers, which can be less expensive and better tailored to the needs of their employees. AHPs can be formed based on common geography or based on a common industry or trade group.

The Department of Labor recently issued FAQs and a lengthy rule about AHPs, but for our purposes, one of the important pro-business features is that participation in an AHP cannot be used as evidence that the participant employers are joint employers under federal wage and hour law or employee benefits law.

The rule also recognizes that businesses may contract with individuals as independent contractors and that jointly participating in an AHP with these independent contractors does not make the business an employer or the contractor an employee.  The inclusion of independent contractors in an AHP is not evidence of misclassification.

The rule takes effect August 20, 2018.

© 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.

 

Lessons from a Reggae Cucumber Song: Draft Benefit Plan Eligibility Language Carefully

ERISA independent contractor misclassification cucumber

Reggae artist Macka B has a song touting the nutritional benefits of the cucumber. The song includes verses like:

Get the cucumber cut it inna slice
Put it inna jug of water overnight
You know what you get for a fraction of the price
Energy drink full of electrolytes

I learned about this song when I asked The Google for songs about benefits. But as much as I like the song (youtube here), this post is about a different kind of benefits.

One of the biggest risks of independent contractor misclassification is having to provide employee benefits to workers you thought were independent contractors. If it turns out those workers were misclassified and are really employees, they may suddenly be eligible for all sorts of employee benefits, including retirement plans like 401(k) match and employee stock ownership. And they’ll be eligible retroactively. This can be expensive. A goof of this type cost one major corporation $97 million back in the late 1990s.

As one recent federal court decision from Georgia reminds us, businesses can avoid this risk with careful drafting in its benefit plan document.

Continue reading