Why I Can’t Give You a Template Independent Contractor Agreement

Independent contractor vs employee template independent contractor agreement - generic independent contractor agreement - IMG_1112I am often asked for a sample Independent Contractor Agreement. I do a lot of work in this area, so I should have plenty, right? Well, sure, I have drafted dozens, but they won’t do you much good.

A generic Independent Contractor Agreement that includes a few boilerplate recitals is of little value. A generic agreement probably says something like, “We all agree that you’re an independent contractor and not an employee. We won’t pay employment taxes for you. We’re not paying into your Social Security account or providing you workers’ comp or unemployment coverage. We’re not giving you benefits. You’re lucky if we let you breathe the air in our building. No, you know what, bring your own oxygen tank. You can’t use our air. You agree to all of this and you’ll like it. And Thank you sir, may I have another?

As discussed here, applying the wisdom of a Dave Mason song, merely agreeing to be classified as an independent contractor doesn’t mean the worker is one. The determination of Independent Contractor vs. Employee is based on the facts, not what the parties agree. Remember: You can’t just agree to not to follow tax law, employment law, and employee benefit law. If the facts say the worker is an employee, then the worker is an employee — no matter what the agreement says.

So why even have an Independent Contractor Agreement?

Lots of reasons — if it’s customized to fit the facts of the relationship. Use the contract to highlight the facts that support independent contractor status. When drafting a meaningful Independent Contractor Agreement, consider the tests that might be applied to determine if the worker is really an employee or an independent contractor. These include Right to Control Tests, Economic Realities Tests, and ABC Tests, among others.

If the worker determines when and where to do the work, what days to do the work, whether to hire helpers, what equipment to use, etc., those are all facts that support independent contractor status. Put that in the agreement!

Or better yet, if you do not intend to exercise control over those decisions, don’t just write in the Agreement that the contractor gets to decide these things. Write that the business has no right to control these things. It’s a “Right to Control” Test you need to be concerned about. There is no “Exercise of Control” Test.

Independent Contractor Agreements can be helpful in memorializing a legitimate independent contractor relationship and can be valuable evidence in a hearing or trial if the worker’s status as an independent contractor is challenged. But they are helpful only if they are customized to fit the facts of the relationship.

Generic recitations of independent contractor status are of little value. They’re the Canadian pennies of the contract world. Make your Independent Contractor Agreement work for you.

© 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.

 

NLRB Shifts to Republican Majority; Change in Joint Employment Doctrine Is Likely

NLRB joint employment william emanuelWatching the National Labor Relations Board is like riding a see-saw (a very slow one, and not a very fun one, but stay with me here).

Board members serve five-year terms and, when they expire, the President has the right to appoint a successor, with confirmation by the Senate. Predictably, under Democratic administrations, the Board tips toward union workers’ rights, and under Republican administrations, the Board tips toward protecting businesses.

With the late September confirmation of William Emanuel to the Board’s fifth (and tie-breaking) seat, the see-saw tipped back toward the side of protecting businesses.

Emanuel joins the Board from a defense firm that represents many large companies in labor disputes. Firms that represent companies in labor disputes typically do not also represent employees because doing so would create philosophical conflicts between the firm’s clients. You’d be arguing to interpret the law one way for an employee client, then another way for an employer client. Emanuel’s background therefore, has been pro-business.

As I wrote here, that background caused several Democrats to express concern. It was little surprise, then, that he was confirmed by a partisan vote of 49-47, winning by a safety when the Democratic quarterback was sacked in the end zone late in the fourth quarter.

Emanuel joins Republicans Philip Miscimarra and Marvin Kaplan, giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Board for the first time in almost 10 years.

The Board does not decide which cases to bring. The NLRB General Counsel does that. But the Board acts as the main decision-making body for labor law disputes, with its decisions appealable to the U.S. Courts of Appeal.

One of the Board’s most controversial decisions in the past five years was the Browning-Ferris decision in 2015, which drastically lowered the bar for finding joint employment in a relationship. You know those playground monkey bars you used to have to jump to reach? The Board lowered those to knee level. You’d have to limbo to get under them. They are no fun to play on. Under the new standard, a business can be a joint employer even if it exerts only indirect and minimal control. You can read more about that decision here.

The Browning-Ferris case is currently under appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It might be affirmed, might be reversed. But here’s what you should remember: The NLRB tends not to follow the rulings of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The NLRB’s decisions cover all 50 states, but each Court of Appeals covers only a handful of states, and so its rulings do not have widespread reach.

So no matter what the Court of Appeals does in Browning-Ferris, the NLRB is likely to continue to apply the standard it wants to apply. Under the Obama Board, that standard was to lower the monkey bars to your knees. Under the new Board, the standard for finding joint employment is expected to be raised back up to the point where you can swing freely from bar to bar without your feet ever touching the mulch below. The new Board is likely to re-establish the old joint employment standard, in which more direct control over workers is required for a finding of joint employment under federal labor law.

This change won’t happen right away. It may be a while before the right case gets to the new Board and the new Board has the opportunity to change course. But it is expected to happen.

Employers concerned about being tagged as joint employers for labor law purposes should remain cautious and continue to follow developments. Even if the labor law standard changes, though, there are still different tests for joint employment under different laws, so a change will have limited effect. For now, the indirect Browning-Ferris standard remains in place, but probably not for too much longer.

© 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.

Can Independent Contractor Misclassification Automatically Violate Federal Labor Law? (Hint: Yes)

The past two weekends, we have seen NFL players link arms in solidarity. They protest mistreatment and injustice in society, not mistreatment and injustice by their employers. In fact, there have been several instances where owners and coaches have joined in.

Had the players been protesting actions by their employers — their teams — their actions likely would be considered “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA grants employees the right to act collectively to protest terms or conditions of their employment. Employees have these rights even if there is no union.

NLRA rights apply only to employees, not to independent contractors. Independent contractors have no right under the NLRA to engage in collective behavior. In fact, antitrust laws can sometimes prohibit independent contractors from acting collectively — such as in price fixing.

So let’s get to the issue that is the focus of this blog — the issue of Independent Contractor vs. Employee.

Here’s the question of the day:

If independent contractors have no rights under the NLRA but employees do, can the mere act of misclassifying independent contractors be considered a denial of NLRA rights? 

Yes, said an Administrative Law Judge in a recent case involving couriers.

Here’s the judge’s reasoning: Employees have NLRA rights, allowing them to act collectively. An employer violates the NLRA by denying an employee the right to act collectively. Protected concerted activity can include discussing wages with co-workers, discussing discipline, speaking out against a supervisor, criticizing work conditions, and a broad range of other activities (many of which you probably never thought were protected).

Independent contractors do not have these rights because the NLRA applies only to employees. By misclassifying a worker as a contractor, the judge ruled, a business is essentially telling the worker — who is actually an employee — that he has none of these rights.

Telling an employee that he has no right to engage in protected concerted activity is pretty clearly a violation of the NLRA.

And there you go.

So what does that mean for businesses that use independent contractors? In other posts, we have discussed many of the negative consequences of independent contractor misclassification. A business that has misclassified workers as independent contractors (when they should really be deemed employees) can be liable for failure to pay employment taxes, failure to provide workers’ compensation and unemployment coverage, failure to follow hiring and paycheck laws, failure to provide employee benefits, and more.

Now add to that list a possible automatic violation of the National Labor Relations Act — at least according to this judge.

You can’t see me, but I am kneeling in protest.

© 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.

 

Update: Uber’s Misclassification Cases, Arbitration, and the Supreme Court

Independent contractor vs employee Uber misclassification lawsuit arbitration agreements IMG_1111Remember the children’s game called Red Light, Green Light? One ambitious youngster is selected as the traffic cop, who randomly shouts “red light” or “green light,” requiring all the children to run and stop and start in short bursts that would cause an adult human to tear an ACL.

That’s essentially what’s happening in the big Uber misclassification case that has been pending in California since 2014. The case is called O’Connor v. Uber Technologies and is being overseen by traffic cop / federal judge Edward Chen in San Francisco. If anyone ever gets to the finish line, it will eventually be determined whether Uber drivers are properly classified as independent contractors, rather than employees.

There are lots of Uber cases, but this one is the biggie for now, with potentially a billion dollars at issue. For those keeping score at home, that’s 1,000 times more than Dr. Evil demanded for the return of the Kreplachistan warhead.

In December 2015, the judge approved a class of 240,000 drivers, and allowed the case to proceed toward a trial. Green light! Notably, many of the drivers in the class had signed arbitration agreements preventing them from participating in a class action. The judge, however, ruled that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable. He said that the agreement prevented the drivers from engaging in “protected concerted activity” (participating in a class action lawsuit), a right protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Now wait a minute. We have a chicken and egg problem here. The NLRA only applies to employees. If the drivers are truly independent contractors, the NLRA does not apply, and the validity of the arbitration agreements should not be an issue. Uber filed an immediate appeal, claiming that the agreements are valid and that judge should not have allowed the case to proceed as a class action. (Red light?)

In April 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear Uber’s appeal.

Meanwhile, Judge Chen allowed the case to proceed toward trial, despite the appeal. Green light! But both sides flinched (Red light!), and the case settled for $100 million.

But wait. A judge must approve a class settlement. This judge ruled the settlement was unfair to drivers since the actual recovery in trial could be much greater. (Hey, isn’t that the point of a settlement? The drivers also might have taken home nothing!) Anyway, Green light!

Meanwhile, back at the Ninth Circuit, the appeals court issued an order last week that said, “Hey, everybody wait.” Red light!

The Court of Appeals noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide whether employee arbitration agreements that waive the right to participate in a class action are permissible, or whether they violate the NLRA. That’s the same issue that led Judge Chen to call “Green light!” in 2015 and certify the class of Uber drivers. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely govern whether the Uber drivers’ arbitration agreements are valid.

On October 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on this issue, and a decision is expected in the first half of 2018. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far reaching consequences for all businesses who ask their workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving the right to trial and waiving the right to participate in a class action.  So far, courts around the country have split on this important issue, reaching different conclusions about whether these agreements are allowed. The Supreme Court decision will settle this issue for everybody.

The Supreme Court case, called NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, will be one of the more significant employment law decisions from the Supreme Court in a long time. You can read more here from SCOTUSblog or here from Baker Hostetler blogs.

© 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.

Subcontractors Can Be Jointly Liable for Contractors’ Labor Law Violations

Otter: “He can’t do that to our pledges.”

Boon: “Only we can do that to our pledges.”

–Animal House, 1978

Subcontractors are like pledges in a way. They have to abide by the rules that apply to the primary contractor. If they fail to do so, they are responsible. Fairness isn’t really the issue.

A recent case shows how subcontractors can be held responsible when a primary contractor improperly fails to bargain with a union. In 2014, a contractor won a bid to take over a Job Corps Youth Training Center. The Center had been a union facility, and the contract was set to expire right around the same time the contractor took over operations. The contractor brought in a subcontractor, MJLM, to handle wellness, recreation,

The contractor initiated a new hire process, and some union employees were rehired while others were not. The contractor imposed new terms and conditions of employment, disregarding the progressive discipline and other procedures that had been negotiated into the prior union contract.

The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, alleging that the contractor engaged in various unfair labor practices, including making unilateral changes to terms of employment without bargaining and improperly discharging various union employees. The Board’s General Counsel amended the complaint to allege that MJLM was equally responsible for any violations as a joint employer.

MJLM fought back, claiming that it was along for the ride, but the NLRB — and ultimately the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — found otherwise. The Board and the Court found that MJLM was a joint employer because it was involved in the hiring process, had influence over wages, assisted in setting holiday schedules, and helped to operate the center.

MJLM, as a subcontractor, was found to be a joint employer and therefore equally responsible for any unfair labor practices committed by the contractor.

When I read the case, I assumed the case was decided under the controversial new Browning-Ferris standard that allows for a finding of joint employment if there was merely indirect control. I was wrong. The Board (and Court) ruled that even under the old standard requiring direct exercise of control, the subcontractor was a joint employer.

Businesses should remember that joint employment can result in liability for violations by others. A subcontractor can be held responsible for unfair labor practices by a contractor. In this case, both the contractor and subcontractor were required to recognize the union, undo their unilaterally imposed practices, commence bargaining, and reinstate and make whole the employees who were not rehired.

MJLM was just as responsible as the contractor. To paraphrase the Court’s decision, with apologies to Dean Wormer, “The time has come for someone to put his foot down, and that foot is me.”


© 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.

Drivers Rack Up Misclassification Settlements, While GrubHub Fights Back

In 1984, the Cars released a sad-sounding song called Drive. I assume it was about a guy longing for a girl, but it’s too depressing to listen to the whole thing. Throughout the song, Ric Ocasek asks “Who’s gonna drive you home tonight?” (Why the long face, Ric? Kidding.)

If you use a ride hailing service, chances are it’s an independent contractor driver who’s gonna drive you home. But in several high profile lawsuits, drivers have challenged their independent contractor status. While these suits have been in the news for years, there have been a recent flurry of high dollar settlements. Earlier this year, Lyft agreed to pay $27 million to a class of 95,000 drivers in California and Door Dash agreed to pay $5 million. Just last week, Postmates agreed to pay $8.75 million.

Notably, none of these settlements resolved the issue of whether drivers for these companies are employees or independent contractors. The settlements involved payouts and agreed-upon changes in company policies, but none of the drivers were reclassified as employees.

GrubHub, on the other hand, has taken a misclassification case to trial. The case being tried is not a class action, and only about $600 is at issue. But the case may have significant ramifications for the status of independent contractor driviers, both at GrubHub and potentially elsewhere, and the case is being watched closely. (You can read more here and here.) As of this morning (9/18/17), the case is still in trial and there has been no verdict.

The point to remember is that companies who use an independent contractor model face a substantial risk of being sued. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are aggressive in recruiting contractors to file lawsuits that challenge their status as independent contractors, arguing that they should be paid as employees instead.

Companies using a contractor model should be proactive. Take steps to evaluate these relationships now. Adjust the facts and contract language to best position your business to defend against a misclassification challenge.

Independent contractor misclassification litigation is active and should be watched closely — unlike the Cars, who broke up in 1988 (for the most part, anyway; you can read more here in the unlikely event you care about the current status of the Cars).

© 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.

 

Who is the Next “Miss Classified”? Here’s How I Would Award the Prize.

IMG_1107I received an email this week from a worker claiming he was “Miss Classified.” I did not know there was a pageant for that, but I suppose congratulations were probably due. I politely responded that I only represent companies, not individuals, in disputes relating to independent contractor misclassification, and I wished him luck.

But then I started thinking, What if there was a pageant? What would it take to be crowned Miss Classified?

I came up with a few criteria.

To be named Miss Classified, a contestant would probably have a job that requires her to work a set daily schedule, with little flexibility. She’d have to ask a supervisor for time off (including to enter this pageant).

A fixed schedule suggests employment when assessing Independent Contractor vs. Employee, so I’d award that contestant a point toward becoming Miss Classified. If the supervisor denies the request for time off, I’d award an extra point toward Miss Classified status — but sadly, if denied the day off, this worthy contestant might not show up for the pageant. [🤔]

I’d award another point toward being named Miss Classified if she uses company tools and equipment. If she does office work, she’d get points if she uses someone else’s desk and computer, performs her work at the company’s primary place of business, and has a company badge. I’d award bonus points if she has a company email address.

Instead of a swimsuit competition, I’d have contestants reveal what they wear to work. Anyone wearing a swimsuit is at the wrong pageant and would be asked to leave. But anyone wearing company uniform or logo would get a point. I’d have an exception, though. If the company shirt says “Company – Authorized Contractor,” no points.

For the talent portion of the Miss Classified pageant, I’d ask candidates how they learned their special skill. I’d award no points to anyone who became licensed and trained on their own time and on their own dime. But if they learned their craft from the company they are working for, I’d award a point toward being named Miss Classified. If the company paid for the license or training, I’d award another point.

My pageant would have a monetary award for the winner (let’s just call it damages), but before awarding any economic prizes, I’d ask the contestants about their current financial situation. Are you economically reliant on one company for all your compensation? If yes, two points. That’s a candidate who might be worthy of the title Miss Classified.

On the other hand, a candidate gets no points if she performs work for several companies and advertises her services in the marketplace. Anyone using a personal business card and website to advertise her services to the public gets no points. Anyone who is simultaneously working for one company and that company’s direct competitors will be disqualified from the competition. That person is probably not Miss Classified.

I’d hold my competition in California. That would be the most likely place for someone to be named Miss Classified. California has all sorts of state laws that would influence the outcome of my competition.

I’d have Simon Cowell judge. Not for any good reason though. I just think that would be good for ratings.

And the winner is … hopefully not anyone performing services for your company!

(In case you were wondering, this would NOT be the among the world’s strangest pageants. But these are.)

© 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.