Free Smells! Jimmy John’s Avoids Franchisor Joint Liability

Joint employment jimmy john’s overtime litigation

The famous bank robber Willie Sutton supposedly once said that he robs banks “because that’s where the money is.” I doubt he said that since it seems rather incriminating. (“I’m sorry, your honor. What I meant is ‘If I did it…” See, Simpson, O.J.). But that’s the legend anyway. You can read more here on whether it’s true.

The strategy for plaintiffs in overtime cases is much the same. Sue the deepest pockets. That’s where the money is. When the deepest pocket is not your employer, allege joint employment.

That’s what happened in the recent overtime lawsuit against some Jimmy John’s franchise owners (the direct employers) and the franchisor (corporate Jimmy John’s). The lawsuit is cleverly titled In Re: Jimmy John’s Overtime Litigation. Like many lawsuits, the case has dragged on for four years. It has not been freaky fast.

Continue reading

Exotic Dance Marathon Ends with $4.5 Million Misclassification Award

Dollar independent contractor misclassification millionsThe Penthouse Club of Philadelphia was hit with a $4.5 million jury award for having misclassified its dancers as independent contractors. This case was filed in 2013, and the federal court just recently entered the judgment order.

For those of you seeking business lessons from stripper lawsuits, today is your lucky day!

The dancers had alleged that they were treated as employees but not paid as employees. For example, they alleged that the club required them to work a set number of hours and days each week, required them to comply with physical appearance guidelines, and took deductions from their tips for what we’ll call special kinds of dances.

The Club fought hard for five years but could not overcome the negative facts in the case. Remember, the determination of whether someone is an employee or a true independent contractor is not based on what the parties agree. It’s based on the facts of the relationship.

This was primarily a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit, and so the Economic Realities Test is used. Other laws apply a Right to Control Test. Some states use a more difficult ABC Test.

Independent contractor misclassification lawsuits can be a tremendous liability, and businesses using contractors should be proactive and set up the relationship in a way that will withstand a challenge. When a business maintains control over hours, days of work, worker appearance, location of work, and other aspects of how the work is performed, the relationship starts to resemble employment.

In this case, the Club not only is on the hook for $4.5 million. They had to pay their attorneys’ fees, they’ll continue to pay their attorneys’ fees if they appeal, and they had to slog through six years of painful, time-consuming litigation that was undoubtedly a distraction from the business of running whatever type of classy joint they have going there. [Note to wife: I did not do any onsite investigation.]

We’ve seen lots of activity lately in the field of “exotic dancing.” I mean misclassification activity, and lawsuit activity, just to be clear on what I’ve been “seeing.” See other multi-million dollar misclassification awards here and here, all of which are SFW.

Businesses that use independent contractors need to evaluate the facts of the relationship and need to be proactive in setting up the facts to support true independent contractor status. Those who fail may get an extra long high-heeled kick in the rear.

© 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 190 other followers

 

California’s New Killer Bee: How Should Businesses Deal with Part B of California’s New Independent Contractor Test?

California ABC test Dynamex Killer Part BAccording to pestworld.org, Africanized honey bees have been known to chase people for more than a quarter mile once they get excited and aggressive. This is why they earned the nickname “killer bee.”

In its recent Dynamex decision, the California Supreme has introduced its own Killer B into California wage and hour law. This new Killer B could make plaintiffs’ lawyers excited and aggressive, chasing down businesses that use independent contractors and filing lawsuits alleging they are really employees. Those lawsuits could really sting!

Today we look at two questions: What is the new Killer Part B, and what do businesses need to know about it?

What’s the Issue?

Several states now use ABC Tests to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, at least under certain state laws. California joined the party with its 4/30/18 Supreme Court decision (Dynamex), adopting an ABC Test to determine who is an employee under most of California’s wage and hour laws.

Part B of the new California test can be difficult to meet. To be a true independent contractor, the worker must be performing work that is outside the hiring party’s “usual course of business.” We’ll call this a Strict ABC Test.

Some states have a more forgiving version of an ABC Test, allowing Part B to be satisfied if the worker performs the services either outside the usual scope of business or off of the hiring party’s premises. New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut use the more forgiving test. We’ll call that version the Standard ABC Test.

What’s the Concern with Part B in California’s New Test?

Part B can be hard to meet.  Lots of workers who are otherwise independent contractors will be considered employees because of Part B — especially under a California-style Strict ABC Test. If the type of services being provided are within the hiring party’s “usual course of business,” the worker must be treated as an employee under California’s wage orders.

Although this Strict ABC Test is new to California employers, it’s not new to multi-state employers. Massachusetts has been using a Strict ABC Test for its wage and hour laws since 2004, when it passed the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office issued an advisory memo on its interpretation of the law, especially Part B.

What Can We Learn From Massachusetts?

The key to success under Part B is establishing that the contractor’s services are outside of the “usual course” of your business. That means the contractor does something that your business doesn’t do.

Companies should consider taking steps to define more precisely its “usual business,” and then memorialize that in multiple ways — internally, externally (website: About Us page?), and contractually in agreements with independent contractors.  Keep in mind the importance of differentiating between the scope of what your business does and the scope of what the independent contractor will be doing.  If you want to satisfy Part B, these things should be different.

You may need to define the scope of your services more narrowly. For example, if your business sells appliances but retains independent contractors to install them, you might take steps to define the scope of your business as “selling appliances but not installing them.” Consider adding language to your contracts, website, and other documents to make this distinction clear.

This is just one of many strategies that businesses in California and Massachusetts should be prepared to implement. Being proactive is the key to avoiding claims of independent contractor misclassification. Evaluate and modify your independent contractor relationships and contracts now, not after you have been sued.

© 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 190 other followers

 

What is California’s new ABC Test, and What Does It Mean for Businesses?

Dynamex ABC test california

What just happened?

Last week, we reported here on the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision. Today’s post takes a deeper dive.

In Dynamex, the California Supreme Court adopted one of the strictest tests in the nation for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The new test is used to determine whether a worker is an “employee” under California’s Industrial Wage Commission (IWC) wage orders. The wage orders require “employees” to be paid minimum wage and overtime, and to receive meal and rest breaks (unless exempt). Under this new test, a lot of independent contractors might now be “employees.”

The new test is an ABC Test. Unlike the balancing tests that start with the scales set equally, the new Dynamex ABC Test begins with the presumption that any worker performing services for your business is your employee. Guilty until proven innocent.

To overcome that presumption, the business must meet all three prongs of the new ABC Test. To prove that the worker is an independent contractor (and that the California wage orders do not apply), the business must be able to show:

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and
(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and
(C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

If the business fails to meet all three prongs of this test, the worker is an employee for purposes of the wage orders. Case closed. Done deal. The other factors don’t even matter.

What does that mean? You must provide the worker a minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest breaks (subject to exemptions, if applicable). It doesn’t matter that you have an Independent Contractor Agreement, and it doesn’t matter if the worker agrees to be an independent contractor status. (Here’s why.)

What was the basis for the California Supreme Court’s decision?

The Court’s decision was based on its analysis of the definition of “employ” under the IWC wage orders. The Court concluded that this definition was intended to cover a broader range of relationships than common law employer-employee relationships.

The wage orders define employ as “to engage, suffer, or permit to work.” This language originated in 1916, with the passage of state laws designed to prevent the exploitation of child laborers. The idea was that if you allow children to work for you, you are going to follow certain legal requirements. To prevent funny business, an intentionally broad definition of “employ” was used.

Those familiar with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) will recall that it too uses a broader definition of “employ” than most other federal laws. The FLSA definition of employ is “to suffer or permit to work.” That sure sounds a lot like the California definition, so shouldn’t California just apply the same Economic Realities Test as used to determine whether someone is an employee under the FLSA? Oh, my dear sweet naive friend, that would be too simple. And California doesn’t like simple.

The California Supreme Court went out of its way to point out that California came up with its language first and that it never intended to follow the FLSA test. Really, it says that. So there.

In Dynamex, the California Supreme Court concluded that where the definition of “employ” is “to engage, suffer, or permit to work,” the intent is to cover a broader range of individuals than common law employees and, from now on, the way to determine whether someone is an “employee” under the “engage, suffer, or permit to work” standard is to apply the new ABC Test. The IWC wage orders use this broad definition, and so the wage orders will now apply to any relationship where an individual provides services, unless all three prongs of the ABC Test are met.

But why change now?

If you are asking yourself why the test would change now — when that same definition has been in place for 102 years, when there has been no new law passed by the California legislature, and when no new regulations have been enacted — the answer is what you tell your kids when you’re too tired to explain why: Because I said so.

Really. The Court just said so. Nothing in the law has changed. The new, strict ABC Test did not come from a new law. It came from Massachusetts. Thank you, Massachusetts. Next time just send lobster rolls.

What about the other wacky California employment laws?

Most California employment laws use a more traditional definition of employee, not the broad “engage, suffer, or permit to work” definition. Under these other laws, therefore, the test for determining whether someone is an employee is (we think) unchanged. For the most part, the S.G. Borello test should continue to apply.

The S.G. Borello test stems from a 1989 California Supreme Court decision and is a hybrid Right to Control/Economic Realities balancing test.

Under S.G. Borello, the primary question is whether the hiring party retains the right to control the worker, both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. If yes, the worker is an employee. If it is unclear, then secondary factors are considered.

Secondary factors include:

1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;
2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
4. The alleged employee’s investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
7. The alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.

The court or agency then mixes all of these factors into a witch’s cauldron, blends them together, sprinkles in a pinch of eye of newt, waits for the smoke to clear, and then declares that, based on an analysis of the multiple factors, the worker must be an … (insert answer here). The S.G. Borello test is a balancing test, subject to interpretation. It’s gray.

California does have some other strict tests. The Dynamex ABC Test is not the only one. For example, strict tests apply in the construction industry and for the performance of work where a license is required but not obtained. Under those scenarios, like under IWC wage orders, it’s much harder to maintain independent contractor status than it is under a law that applies the S.G. Borello test.

What about federal laws? Do those still apply too?

Hahahahahahaha! You bet they do! Employers in California are still required to follow the FLSA, which determines whether someone is an employee by using an Economic Realities Test. Yes, lucky California business owners, this means your worker could be an employee under the strict ABC Test imposed by Dynamex and therefore subject to California minimum wage and overtime rules; but, at the same time, the same worker might be a legitimate independent contractor under the Economic Realities Test and therefore not subject to federal minimum wage and overtime law. Well that’s confusing.

Right to Control Tests govern the determination of whether someone is an employee under federal tax law, anti-discrimination law, and employee benefits law. As we discussed here, it’s certainly possible to be an employee under one law but an independent contractor under another law.

With the introduction of the strict Dynamex ABC Test, that will happen more often, ensuring full employment for lawyers like me.

© 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 190 other followers

 

Restaurant Can Decline to Pay Workers if They Are Church Volunteers, Says Appeals Court

Angley

Serving God by serving mashed potatoes

According to TV evangelist Rev. Ernest Angley, the Cathedral Buffet is “the Lord’s buffet,” and members of his church, Grace Cathedral, are expected to volunteer when Rev. Angley asks. Although the church’s restaurant had paid employees, it was sometimes short-staffed and looked to parishioners to help — as unpaid volunteers. Rev. Angley has been controversial in the past (google “Rev Angley never actually touched his …”), but this controversy is SFW.

The Department of Labor sued the church, claiming that the volunteers were doing the same work as the restaurant’s employees, and therefore they had to be paid like employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires at least a minimum wage.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has sided with Rev. Angley. The Court ruled that if workers do not expect to get paid, they are volunteers and not employees, which means they are not covered by the FLSA.

There is one exception, though. If someone is coerced to work for free, the volunteer rule does not apply. The Court noted that when the restaurant was short-staffed, Rev. Angley would “ask” for volunteers.

But here’s what we mean by “ask”: He would instruct churchgoers that “[e]very time you say no, you are closing the door on God.” He suggested that church members who repeatedly refused to volunteer at the restaurant were at risk of “blaspheming against the Holy Ghost,” which was an unforgivable sin in the church’s doctrine.

Is that coercion?

Yes, maybe, but it’s not the kind of coercion covered under the law. The Court ruled that the coercion exception applies only to economic coercion, not spiritual coercion. To summarize:

  • If working for free is required by your powerful boss, that’s economic coercion. Illegal.
  • But if working for free is required by a higher power, that’s spiritual coercion. Not illegal.

The Court of Appeals stressed religious freedom. If church member volunteers have no expectation of being paid when working for a church-run enterprise, they are volunteers and not employees. The expectation of compensation “is a threshold inquiry that must be satisfied before” applying the FLSA.

The decision reversed a judgment of nearly $400,000 against the church.

Trip advisor reviews of the Cathedral Buffet, as expected, are hilarious, with Duane H of Stow describing the buffet as “akin to nursing home food.” Hooliganmom accused the mashed potatoes of being “fake” and says she preferred her high school cafeteria.

Unfortunately for curiosity seekers (or volunteers) living near Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, the buffet is now permanently closed.

© 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 190 other followers

 

Is Joint Employment Illegal?

Is joint employment illegal? Buddha statue(Or, How is Joint Employment Like Tibetan Reincarnation?)

In Tibet, it is illegal to be reincarnated as a living Buddha unless “a majority of local religious believers and the monastery management organization” has requested the reincarnation. This is according to State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5, issued in 2007, apparently to clamp down on rampant, uncontrolled reincarnations.

Joint employment is like Tibetan reincarnation in that both have lots of rules. But unlike Tibetan reincarnation, joint employment is not illegal.

Joint employment merely means that, in the eyes of the law, there are two employers. So far, no problem.

The problems arise if the primary employer doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.

Consider a staffing agency scenario. The staffing agency is the primary employer. If the staffing agency’s employees are working at your company, taking direction from your supervisors, and working side-by-side with your employees, then the staffing agency workers are probably your joint employees.

The staffing agency is expected to pay its employees minimum wage, properly calculate their overtime, track their hours, etc. If they do all those things, no problem.

But if they don’t, that’s when joint employment becomes a problem. Even though your company has no control over the payroll processes of the staffing agency, your company can be held liable for their mistakes. That’s because under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), joint employers are both responsible for making sure that employees are properly paid.

The lesson here is to be careful about the companies you partner with for your staffing needs. If the agency is reliable, well-established, well-financed, and well-insured, then you should be in good shape. Fly-by-night operations that price their services at too-good-to-be-true discounts are a risk — not just because they might fail to provide you with quality employees, but because they might fail to properly pay those employees and then your company can be held responsible.

Be careful who you invite into your tent. Screen your staffing agencies. Impose contractual requirements that protect your business. Require adequate insurance. And do not ever permit any unauthorized reincarnations.

 

© 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 190 other followers

 

Selling Hot Dogs: Why the DOL Thinks It’s 2008 Again

Dol wage and hour guidance hot dogs

The year 2008 doesn’t seem that long ago. Flo Rida was atop the Billboard charts, No Country for Old Men won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Episode 1 of the 2008 season of Celebrity Apprentice (titled, “Selling Hot Dogs” [yes, really]) featured the judging panel of Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump. More on Episode 1 below.

The DOL must be longing for the good old days. Earlier this month, the Wage & Hour Division quietly withdrew its 2014 Fact Sheet advising businesses how to differentiate employees from independent contractors under the FLSA.

Instead, they reposted the 2008 version. In practical terms, there’s probably no real effect. The statute and the regulations that would govern the analysis haven’t changed between 2008 and 2014. But the 2014 version (cached copy here) also included some Obama-DOL commentary, advising that “most workers” are employees under the proper analysis. The old/new 2008 version doesn’t say that.

In any event, what businesses need to know is that courts apply an Economic Realities Test when deciding Who Is My Employee? under the FLSA.

The FLSA is the federal statute requiring non-exempt employees to be paid minimum wage and overtime. It does not apply to independent contractors, which is one reason why misclassification matters. If you thought your worker was properly classified as an independent contractor, then the minimum wage and overtime requirements did not apply. If the worker was misclassified and was really an employee, your business may be held liable for failing to pay minimum wage and overtime.

And for those of you who read all the way to the end of this post hoping to be rewarded with more information about the outcome of Episode 1: Selling Hot Dogs, there’s this from Wikipedia:

Winning team: Hydra, with total sales of $52,286.
Reasons for win: Hydra used their celebrity status to drastically up-sell the hot dogs and Gene Simmons used his contacts to put impressive numbers. Piers Morgan also came up with an idea whereby anyone who paid $100 or more for a hot dog would get to have their picture taken with one of the celebrities, encouraging passers-by to make more substantial donations.

Good job, Piers. You should be proud.

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.