Category Archives: Gig Economy

09.16.24
by

Try These Steps to Reduce IC Misclassification Risks, in the Long Run

Don Henley used to hurry a lot, he used to worry a lot, he used to stay out till the break of day.

But you don’t need to carry on that way. — at least when it comes to reducing your company’s risk of independent contractor misclassification. Here are four steps you can take that will proactively reduce risk, in the long run:

1. Review & Modify Actual Practices

Courts answer the question of Who Is My Employee? By reviewing the actual facts, not what the parties intend or what the contract says. Make sure the facts on the ground are consistent with economic independence of the contractor and a lack of control by the hiring party. Change the facts when you can.

2.Create a Vendor Qualification Questionnaire

Require vendors to make a set of written representations that support their status as independent contractors. Then rely on this set of representations when deciding whether to retain each contractor. These representations also help to pin down a contractor who later claims to be an employee.

3.Create a Gatekeeper Process

Sometimes contractors are retained by operations people who don’t know the first thing about misclassification and related legal risks. A gatekeeper process requires all retentions of independent contractors to flow through a designated person who can issue-spot and evaluate whether the proposed retention is consistent with independent contractor status. The gatekeeper has the discretion to approve or deny requests to retain a contractor.

4.Draft Customized Contracts

Any independent contractor agreement you find on the internet is pure garbage. Contracts should be customized:

  • To memorialize the specific facts that support independent contractor status in the relationship
  • To prohibit the exercise of control by the hiring party over various aspects of the relationship
  • To impose indemnity obligations and insurance requirements, and
  • To make it more difficult for a contractor to challenge the independent contractor classification

Taking proactive steps like these can help you to answer this question in the affirmative, when facing an independent contractor classification challenge: Who is gonna make it? We’ll find out, in the long run.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.09.24
by

Hungry Serpents: Contractor Who Admitted Being Self-Employed Loses Suit in Which He Claims to Be an Employee

Snakes may have an eating disorder. Is cannibalism an eating disorder?

A wildlife technician for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources was searching for eastern indigo snakes, when he found a four-footer with an unusual appetite. Upon capture, the snake vomited up other snakes. The snake has eaten another indigo snake (no relation?), a rate snake, and possibly a rattlesnake, which may or may not have still been alive. Published reports of the incident are unclear about the rattlesnake.

Turning on your own species is not unique to snakes. We see independent contractors try that trick all the time. They’re content to be contractors until they decide they’re unhappy, at which point they sue and claim to have been an employee all along.

A recent Fifth Circuit case stood out to me for two reasons:

(1) The contractor had made previous statements, under oath, that he was self-employed. I wanted to see if the court would hold those against him.

(2) If the court applied the economic realities test, I wanted to see which version of the test it would use. Would the court apply the new DOL version of the test?

Here’s what happened. The Killick Group provides inspection services in the oil, gas, and energy industries. When the need arises for a job, the company engages third party independent contractor inspectors to perform the work.

One of those third party inspectors was Guillermo Gray. Gray was a certified welding and coding inspector with his own company. Gray sued Killick Group, alleging that he was an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and should have received overtime pay.

In defending the claim, Killick Group used past statements by Gray against him. In 2015, Gray was convicted of driving while intoxicated. When applying to secure a work-only driver’s license, he attested that he was “self-employed” as an inspector, and he listed his own company, Veritas Inspections, Inc., as his employer.

Killick Group argued that Gray was judicially estopped from claiming to be an employee, since he attested previously that he was self-employed. Killick Group also argued that Gray did not meet the test to qualify as an employee under the FLSA.

The trial court agreed with the judicial estoppel argument and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit had some concerns with the estoppel argument and decided to analyze the case under the FLSA.

The appeals court applied an economic realities test, considering five factors:

(1) the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer;
(2) the extent of the relative investments of the worker and the
alleged employer;
(3) the degree to which the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss is determined by the alleged employer;
(4) the skill and initiative required in performing the job; and
(5) the permanency of the relationship.

The court determined that Gray was an independent contractor under the test.

Two things stand out to me about this case.

First, the Fifth Circuit did not consider the version of the test created by the DOL in its recent independent contractor regulation. The Fifth Circuit applied the same five-part test that Fifth Circuit courts had applied in the past.

Second, I wish the Fifth Circuit would have analyzed the judicial estoppel argument. Since the court determined that Gray was not covered by the FLSA, the court did not consider the judicial estoppel argument. I find the judicial estoppel argument intriguing, and I like it as a tool — if it will work. Independent contractors regularly assert that they have independent businesses, such as when taking tax deductions and filing a Schedule C. As an advocate for companies, I’d like to be able to use those assertions against an individual who later claims to be an employee. It would have been helpful to have Fifth Circuit case law supporting that argument.

Both of these takeaways are worth digesting. I will digest them more thoroughly than the indigo snake digested its meals, one of which may or may not have still been alive at the time of regurgitation. The mystery of what happened to the possibly-eaten, possibly-still-alive rattlesnake remains unsolved. I choose to believe it was eaten and lived. That makes for the better story.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.26.24
by

“Relative Nature”: Can You Bear This Broad Workers Comp Test for Employee Status?

Nature can be cruel. Friends can be crueler.

A 32-year old man was attacked by a brown bear earlier this month while hunting near Cooper Landing, Alaska. The man survived the bear attack, but then his hunting buddy shot him in the leg when trying to kill the bear. Thanks, buddy!

(No, it was not Dick Cheney.)

Nature makes its way into independent contractor status tests too, sometimes — relative nature, that is. Today’s post is about a test sometimes used in workers compensation cases.

In D.C., the test for whether someone is an employee under the workers’ comp law is a “relative nature of the work test.” States that have adopted this broad test have moved away from the more common “right to control” test.

Under this test, an employment relationship is found when (1) the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and (2) the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service.

Here’s how D.C. courts interpret the two parts.

The first part focuses on the “nature and character of the claimant’s work or business” and requires consideration of three factors: (a) the degree of skill involved in the work in question; (b) the degree to which it is a separate calling or business; and (c) the extent to which it can be expected to carry its own accident burden.

The second part of the test focuses on the relation of the claimant’s work to the employer’s business and also requires consideration of three factors: (a) the extent to which the claimant’s work is a regular part of the employer’s regular work; (b) whether it is continuous or intermittent; and (c) whether its duration is sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services, as distinguished from contracting for the completion of a particular job.

In states that use this type of workers comp test, more relationships will be captured than under other, more traditional worker classification tests.

But this might not be a bad thing. The benefit of workers comp coverage for businesses is that it protects them from tort liability. In industries like construction, where injuries can be serious, coverage can be helpful. The disadvantage is that workers comp is no-fault, and you’re required to pay for the coverage.

So next time you’re hunting to see whether you might need to provide workers comp coverage to your contractor or causal laborer, remember that some states have pretty broad tests. Not broad enough to get coverage if your hunting buddy shoots you in the leg, but you get the idea.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.12.24
by

Smashing! House Committee Presses DOL to Reveal Any Changes to Its Independent Contractor Enforcement Strategy

In this video, Muhammad Rashid of Pakistan, crushes 39 cans in 30 seconds. With his head. (I like the little fist pump he gives at the end.)

Why would a person do this? To get attention, I imagine. It caught my attention.

The House Committee of Education and the Workforce may also be trying to solicit a bit of attention, but I do want to know the answers to the Committee’s questions.

On August 8, they sent this letter to Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, asking her for information about the DOL’s enforcement activity under its new independent contractor rule. The Committee would like the DOL to answer three questions:

1) Since January 20, 2021, how many instances of misclassification have Wage and Hour Division (WHD) inspectors found? Please provide the total number of instances across each occupation that has been subject to investigation.

2) Please provide the number of misclassification enforcement investigations WHD has initiated for each specific industry sector since January 20, 2021.

3) Has DOL initiated any investigations related to misclassification based on its coordination with the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission? If so, please provide the number of investigations DOL has undertaken, broken down by each specific industry segment.

Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-not from Virginia) writes that she asked Su these questions when Su appeared before the Committee on May 1, but Su failed to answer. The letter begins by knocking Su around a bit, alleging that the DOL with its new independent contractor rule is trying to destroy all independent contractor relationships.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t know where this letter falls on the continuum of publicity stunt vs. actual relevance for policy making, but I think these are good questions. It would be hopeful for businesses to know whether the DOL’s enforcement strategy has shifted since enactment of the new rule. And if so, how.

The Committee might get the answers it seeks, or it might just be banging its head against the wall cans. But it never hurts to ask.

What Mr. Rashid was doing, on the other hand, does hurt. Or it should hurt. And if it doesn’t hurt, then maybe that tells us something too. Also, I think Mr. Rashid owes someone the cost of 39 beers.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.05.24
by

Filled Up With Rules? Temp Worker Laws Are Still Being Challenged

Teacher, don’t you fill me up with your rules (fn1)

Brownsville Station was a rock band formed in Ann Arbor in 1969. (Go Blue!) Their biggest hit, Smokin’ in the Boys Room, reached #3 on the Billboard charts and was later covered by Motley Crue. The song was Motley Crue’s first Top 40 hit. Apparently LeeAnn Rimes covered the song too in an album called Nashville Outlaws: A Tribute to Motley Crue, which is I guess was her tribute to a tribute to Brownsville Station.

Business groups in New Jersey and Illinois have also been pleading don’t you fill me up with your rules – in particular, rules related to the use of temp workers.

As discussed here and here, these two states passed temporarily worker laws that required temps to be paid wages and benefits equivalent to the regular workers they are supplementing.

Those rules are both in effect, but there are still several moving parts you should know about.

In Illinois, a judge struck down the portion of the law that required payment of equivalent benefits, ruling that this portion of the law was preempted by ERISA. Illinois lawmakers are now considering options to amend the law to require the payment of the value of benefits, if not the benefits themselves.

In New Jersey, the law took effect, but there’s an active lawsuit in which staffing and other business groups have challenged the law. The case is pending. New Jersey Staffing Alliance et al. v. Fais et al., No. 1:23-cv-02494, D. N.J.

For now, these two temporary work laws remain in effect, except for the benefits aspect of the Illinois law. But the situation remains fluid. It also would not be surprising if other states enacted similar laws. Companies using temp labor should continue to monitor these developments.

fn1 – Everybody knows that smokin’ ain’t allowed in school.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.24.24
by

Uncomfortably Numb: Minnesota’s New 14-Part Independent Contractor Test

Friday night I saw The Gilmour Project play at Northfield MGM, a smallish venue near Cleveland. Great show with plenty of Pink Floyd deep cuts and a “how did they just do that?” version of The Great Gig in the Sky with an electric guitar handling the Clare Torry solo vocals.

And, as many of you know, there is a law requiring that the last song at any Pink Floyd tribute show must be “Comfortably Numb.” There were no violations of law at this concert.

Last week I came across another law that, in a totally unrelated way, left me uncomfortably numb.

Tucked away in a 1,492-page omnibus bill that regulates, among other things, firearms law, agricultural policy, specialty dentist licensure, minerals taxes, combative sports, and broadband appropriation transfer authority, the Minnesota legislature adopted a new test for determining who is an independent contractor under state law, limited to the construction industry. Page 183.

To satisfy the test, each of 14 factors must be present. Construction includes building improvement but not landscaping services [@LKE: saved you an email].

Why am I posting about such a niche classification test? Two reasons.

First, I suffered through reading it, so I am sharing my pain.

Second, and more important, it’s a good reminder that there are so many worker classification laws out there, with different tests applying across different laws in different states and across different industries.

Minnesota is the champion of this nonsense. The state that brought us rollerblades, water skis, and diaper adhesives has 32 different tests for determining who is an employee under state workers’ compensation law, with different tests applicable to different types of work.

If you are working with large numbers of independent contractors across multiple jurisdictions, there’s a lot to know if you want to do it right. Penalties for noncompliance can be severe, including criminal penalties in some states.

Bonus tip: If you need to fall asleep, pull out that omnibus bill and skip to page 1,086 for the new regulations covering natural organic reduction vessels for human remains. Subdivision 19 prohibits the commingling of bodies in crematorium vessels. I guess that’s good. A different kind of comfortably numb maybe.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.28.24
by

Weigh This Way: Baking Company Wins, Appeals Court Agrees that Distribution Route Drivers are Independent Contractors

About six months ago in Cambridge, Ontario, Sonny Ayres was born, the fifth child of parents Britteney and Chance. But Sonny was no ordinary baby. He weighed 14 1/2 pounds. (Yes, for the benefit of those moms reading this and looking aghast, he was delivered by c-section.)

According to Guinness (the book, not the beer), the heaviest recorded birth was 22 pounds, in 1879 in Seville, Ohio. That baby lived just 11 hours.

A different kind of weighing was at issue in a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, determining independent contractor status.

The issue was whether three plaintiffs who owned Pepperidge Farm distribution routes should have been considered employees under Pennsylvania’s wage and hour laws. The district court granted summary judgment for Pepperidge Farm, ruling that they were not employees, and the drivers appealed.

The drivers argued that the court should not have granted summary judgment because the job of weighing the evidence is supposed to be left to the jury. But, as the Third Circuit explained, it is the judge’s role to weigh the relevant legal factors. The judge can apply the undisputed facts to the relevant legal factors and can make a legal determination whether each factor supports employment or independent contractor status. And that’s exactly what the Third Circuit did here.

Applying a ten-factor Right to Control Test, the court determined that 8 of 10 factors supported independent contractor status, and so the plaintiffs were properly classified as contractors, not employees.

The plaintiffs argued that Pepperidge Farm set parameters and expectations for the distribution routes, thereby exerting control. The Third Circuit, however, explained that setting parameters and expectations is consistent with either independent contractor or employee status. The control factor tilts toward employee status when the hiring party sets parameters and expectations and directs the time, place, and manner of performance.

In this case, the right-to-control factors supported independent contractor status because the drivers determined the time, place, and manner for performing deliveries. The drivers bought and sold routes, organized their own distribution businesses, hired their own employees, set their own hours, and made deliveries when and how they chose.

This case is a good reminder of what type of control is relevant in the right-to-control analysis and what type of control is not. Some control is exerted over every relationship, whether it’s independent contractor or employment. The trick is knowing which type of control can be exerted without tipping the scales.

Pepperidge Farm prevailed in this case because it did not reserve or exercise the kind of control that supports employee status. And for that, we say Weigh to Go!

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
03.04.24
by

Don’t Horse Around: Here Are Three Agreements You Should Have on Your Shelf

Police in Wejherowo, Poland arrested a 19-year-old man for stealing a horse. The man was caught after neighbors reported that he was trying to lead a horse up the stairs to his third floor apartment.

Why would someone do that? Apparently he was trying to conceal the horse and thought his apartment would make a good hiding place. (After all, who would look in a third-floor walk up for a missing horse?) But getting the horse to the apartment was the man’s undoing.

He didn’t think through his plan. Don’t be like that man. Today’s post is to help you think through your plan in advance, but in the context of retaining non-employee labor, not stealing a horse.

I generally recommend having three types of agreements in your stable of documents. (Heh heh, see what I did there?) Each serves a different purpose and contains different features, even though there is often some overlap.

1. Independent Contractor Agreement. This should be crafted for use with solo independent contractors (1099s), regardless of whether there’s a single member LLC or a sole proprietorship.

The goal here is limit the risk of misclassification, that is, a finding that the worker is really your employee.

The agreement should identify and memorialize the facts that support IC status, such as that the company retains no right to control how the work is done, where it’s done, when it’s done, steps, sequence, etc.

If there are lots of ICs doing the same thing, individual arbitration agreements with class waivers can be highly useful to include too, as they reduce the downside risk of misclassification.

2. Vendor Outsourcing Agreement. This document is for when a function is entirely outsourced, such as in the hospitality industry, where it is common to outsource the housekeeping function.

There are two goals here.

One goal is to memorialize the facts that will help avoid a finding of joint employment. These workers should be managed independently of your company’s employees and should not be directly supervised by your managers.

The second goal is make it difficult for a disgruntled worker of the vendor to allege joint employment, and there are various tools in the toolbox to help accomplish this objective.

3. Staffing Services Agreement. This document is to be used when a third party provides staff augmentation services or other workers who are commingled with your employees or supervised by your managers. In this scenario, there’s a reasonable risk of joint employment.

We want to use the contract to build defenses.

First, we want to lay the groundwork for a claim against the vendor if the vendor fails to pay its employees in accordance with the law.

Second, we want to throw obstacles in the way of anyone who might want to bring a joint employment claim. Individual arbitration agreements with class waivers are helpful in that regard.

If you’re working with a staffing agency, the form they provide you is not likely to help limit your legal risks. It’s always better to start with your own form.

Don’t Horse Around

Agreements provided by your vendors are unlikely to provide you with any meaningful protections. Different agreements have different purposes, and these three agreements should each be used in different situations.

It doesn’t work to use a staffing agreement with outsourced employees, and it doesn’t work to use an independent contractor agreement with outsourced labor employed by the vendor. Those workers aren’t independent contractors at all; they’re employees of the vendor. The legal risk you’re trying to address is whether you’re a joint employer. That’s a very different legal question than whether the worker is misclassified.

So be sure to use the right kind of agreement for the right kind of situation.

That means planing ahead and having the right forms on hand, ready to go. As our friend in Wejherowo learned the hard way, you’ve got think all the way through your plan in advance.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
01.22.24
by

Face It: The New DOL Independent Contractor Rule Faces Court Challenges

“Faces” is a useful word.

It can mean the front part of the head, as in this selfie featuring two hairy-faced beasts. The one on the left has a wet drippy beard after sloppily drinking water from a bowl. No, I meant on your left.

It can mean the English rock band formed in 1969, which featured Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood. Their 1971 album, A Nod Is As Good As a Wink… to a Blind Horse, reached #2 in the UK charts.

Or it can be a verb, as in “DOL Independent Contractor Test Faces Court Challenges.” In today’s post, we’re going with verb.

As expected, the independent contractor rule released by the DOL earlier this month is already being challenged in court.

A coalition of business groups is trying to invalidate the rule by asking the Fifth Circuit to reopen an earlier case. In the earlier case, these groups challenged the Biden DOL’s effort to withdraw the Trump DOL’s 2021 version of the independent contractor rule. The 2021 version would have simplified the test, focusing the analysis on two key factors — control and opportunity for profit or loss. In the lawsuit, the business groups argued that the Biden DOL’s efforts to delay and withdraw the Trump DOL’s 2021 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

These groups now argue that the new rule contains the same legal flaws and that that the Trump DOL rule should be the rule that rules. The case is Coalition for Workforce Innovation v. Su, 5th Cir., No. 22-40316.

A second challenge has been filed by freelancer writers and editors who argue that the new rule is impermissibly vague and “freewheeling” (an excellent word choice) and that it violates the APA. They claim that the new rule impermissibly threatens their ability to work as independent contractors and is too vague to allow them to reasonably structure their businesses.

These challenges will take a while to resolve, and more may be filed. Unless a court issues an injunction staying the rule while these cases proceed, the new rule will take effect March 11th.

In the meantime, we’ll keep watching to see what happens. It’s a real face off!

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
01.02.24
by

Snakes! And Other Things to Watch for in 2024

This is a venomous Eastern Brown Snake, native to Australia. Stay away.

Tennis star Dominic Thiem knew what to watch for in his match this past weekend in Brisbane. It was on-court hazard he couldn’t ignore.

Play was interrupted when a “really poisonous snake” slithered onto the court near the ballkids. The intruder, an Eastern Brown Snake, “has the unfortunate distinction of causing more deaths by snake bite than any other species of snake in Australia.” The snake’s venom causes “progressive paralysis and uncontrollable bleeding,” which is not one of the on-court hazards typically of ballkidding.

(I don’t know if ballkidding is the real word for this, but it should be. Or ballkiddery maybe. I also learned from the snake bite article that the proper term for being bit by a venomous snake is “envenomation,” which is a word I hope to use elsewhere in a sentence sometime in 2024. So there’s a New Year’s resolution. [@Lisa, take note, I made one, even though you {correctly} say I am no fun because I won’t play the New Year’s Resolution game.])

The Eastern Brown Snake is not present in the U.S., so we don’t have to watch for any in 2024.

But here are several other things that could bite you in the behind in 2024 if you’re not paying attention:

1. New DOL test for independent contractor misclassification. The DOL issued its proposed new rule in October 2022 and targeted the fall of 2023 for release of a new final rule. The proposed rule would identify seven factors to consider when evaluating whether someone is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule will likely be very similar. We’re still waiting, and the final rule could be released at any time.

2. The new NLRB test for joint employment takes effect Feb. 26, 2024. Unless it doesn’t. The new rule is being challenged in both a federal district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Either court could quash the rule. The new rule will substantially expand who is a joint employer under the NLRA, even for worksites without unions.

3. Increased state and local enforcement activity. States and localities are filing their own lawsuits alleging worker misclassification. The New Jersey Attorney General recently filed a major lawsuit. The California Attorney General and California localities have been pursuing misclassification lawsuits too. Remember this: As much as I advocate for individual arbitration agreements with class waivers, they have no effect on enforcement actions brought by a state or local government. These lawsuits pose a substantial risk, and the governments love to issue one-sided accusatory press releases when they file the lawsuits.

4. The feds are doing this too. The DOL is bringing its own enforcement actions and publicizing them.

5. State and local laws that affect independent contractor classification and joint employment. We’re seeing legislative activity in three main areas:

(a) laws to change the tests;
(b) laws that provide a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain protections are provided to the workers (Cal. Prop 22, this proposed Mass. state law); and
(c) Freelancers laws that impose various requirements when retaining a solo independent contractor (currently: NY, IL, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, NYC, Columbus).

6. State laws that criminalize worker misclassification. Take a look at recent legislation passed in NY State and Rhode Island.

7. State laws governing the use of temporary workers. Look for more states to enact laws like the Illinois Day and Temporary Worker Services Act (amended in Aug. 2023) and the New Jersey Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (enacted in Aug, 2023). These laws force companies that use staffing agencies to disclose the wages and benefits being paid to direct employees.

8. California’s AB 5 is still being challenged. This is the law that codified the ABC Test for most independent contractor relationships. But it also included a grab bag of miscellaneous and arbitrary exceptions. A full en banc Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5.

Wishing you a happy, healthy, and litigation-free 2024.

Best wishes,
Todd

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge