Strippers Say They’re Losing Their Shirts Due to Misclassification Wins

Dancers independent contractor misclassification

Strippers and gentleman’s clubs are well-known for many things. I’m referring, of course, to independent contractor misclassification lawsuits. 

Clubs often classify their performers as independent contractors and, after a string of lawsuits alleging misclassification, some clubs are shedding prior pay practices and reclassifying dancers as employees.

And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

But this is litigation land, not a fairy tale, and plaintiffs’ lawyers still need to make money. Some of the reclassified dancers are finding that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence. In other words, being an employee stripper (instead of an independent contractor stripper) still ain’t that great. So they sued again.

In a lawsuit filed last week in California, a group of dancers complain that when their clubs reclassified them as employees, the clubs “began implementing a new compensation system for the dancers, which substantially reduced their pay – often by a difference of hundreds of dollars or more per shift.” 

The dancers say that’s illegal retaliation. I’d say it’s math. 

The cost of doing business just increased drastically. Treating workers as employees means that the business incurs new expenses — payroll taxes, unemployment premiums, workers’ compensation coverage, possibly overtime premiums, and in California, meal and rest breaks and reimbursement for business expenses. 

The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court for San Diego County. 

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

 

Do Pre-Employment Laws Apply When Running Background Checks on Independent Contractors? (Tip: Instead, Just Ask Edward)

Time traveller independent contractor background check requirements

A time traveler named “Edward” claims to have photographic proof that he is visiting from 5,000 years in the future. According to Metro UK, he described his experience as “unbelievable.” Ponder that.

One of the benefits of time travel is that you’d know if your workers are going commit crimes in the future that could jeopardize your company. With people like Edward in short supply, we are instead forced to try to predict future behavior through more widely accepted methods, like reading tarot cards or performing background checks. (Free tip: pick the latter.)

There are federal and state laws that strictly regulate the processes and procedures for running pre-employment background checks. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week highlights the importance of following all technical requirements, including that employers provide a “clear and conspicuous disclosure” that they may run a background check and that the disclosure is “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.” In that decision, the court ruled that it’s illegal to provide a disclosure that includes state law disclosures on the same page as the federal disclosure. It is common for employers to combine these disclosures on the same form, so check your forms! I blogged about the ruling here, on BakerHostetler’s Employment Class Action blog.

In contrast, the rules for running background checks on independent contractors are not as strict. The federal law requiring a stand alone disclosure applies only to reports being run “for employment purposes.” Same thing for the pre-adverse action notification requirement. It applies only to reports that are run “for employment purposes.”

Interpreting the “for employment purposes” language, at least three federal courts have ruled that a report on a prospective independent contractor is not being run “for employment purposes” and, therefore, these requirements do not apply to reports being run on independent contractors. (The FTC has issued guidance that the “for employment purposes” requirements do apply to independent contractors, but the courts have so far rejected this guidance as being inconsistent with the language of the statute.)

Some of the requirements in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) may still apply, depending on the purpose of the report, but the bottom line is that the rules are different for background checks being run on employees and independent contractors. The FCRA is somewhat complicated, and don’t forget the patchwork of state laws.

There’s also the risk of misclassification — that the independent contractor could be deemed an employee — in which case the FCRA and state law requirements for pre-employment background checks would need to be followed, and the failure to follow them can be costly. The FCRA allows for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, plus attorneys’ fees.

So if you’re afraid of a misclassification claim should you just follow the “for employment purposes” requirements anyway? Not necessarily. Though it can be prudent to follow some of the technical disclosure and pre-adverse action requirements that apply to pre-employment checks, be careful about using any forms with independent contractors that say the background check is being run “for employment purposes.” In other words, the forms you are using for pre-employment background checks might not be suitable for use with independent contractors.

This earlier blog post discusses more of the issues (and potential risks) related to running background checks on independent contractors.

There are plenty of good reasons to run background checks on some types of contractors, particularly those who will be entering customers’ homes. The goal, of course, is to try to predict the risk of future wrongdoing. Background checks can be useful for that purpose.

But the only surefire way to know what is going to happen in the future is to ask Edward.

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

 

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

 

NLRB Changes Independent Contractor Test (Again). Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!

changes independent contractor test super shuttle nlrbThe word of the day is change. Not the kind I needed Saturday morning when it required 37 quarters to drive 50 miles on the Florida Turnpike. (Thank you Walgreens, for the roll of quarters!) No, I mean the David Bowie kind. Turn and face the strange.

On Friday, the Trump-appointed, Republican-majority NLRB issued an important pro-business decision, changing the test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case is called SuperShuttle DFW and involves independent contractor airport shuttle drivers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

The new test is the old test. Or as Roger Daltrey might say, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The new test is the traditional common law Right to Control Test, which had been the test until 2014. In 2014, a Dem-led Board made it harder to prove independent contractor status by changing the test in a case called FedEx Home Delivery. The FedEx test asked whether the worker was “in fact, rendering services as part of an independent business” and essentially adopted an Economic Realities Test, rather than the Right to Control Test that had always been applied.

Friday’s decision brings back the old test — a traditional Right to Control Test.

A Right to Control Test asks who has the right to control the manner and means by which the work is completed. More control by the hiring party tilts toward a finding of employment. Less control means more entrepreneurial opportunity for the worker, which tilts toward a finding of independent contractor.

The Right to Control Test re-adopted in the Super Shuttle decision is a balancing test, and here are the factors the NLRB will consider:

(a) The extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work.

(b) Whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business.

(c) The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision.

(d) The skill required in the particular occupation.

(e) Whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work.

(f) The length of time for which the person is employed.

(g) The method of payment, whether by the time or by the job.

(h) Whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer.

(i) Whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant.

(j) Whether the principal is or is not in business.

In this case, the Amalgamated Transit Union was trying to organize 88 shuttle drivers, each of whom owned their vehicles and paid a flat fee for the right to transport passengers to and from the airport. Drivers kept the money they received for each fare, providing them with the opportunity for profit or loss, depending on how much they chose to work and which rides they chose to accept. Drivers could work when they wanted and could accept or decline rides.

The union argued that the drivers were subject to extensive rules about how they operated, including what they wore, the communication system they used, background check and training requirements, and the appearance and seating arrangements in their vehicles. These requirements, however, were not imposed by the franchisor, which then contracted with the individual drivers. Rather, these requirements were imposed by the state-run DFW Airport.

The Board recognized the important principle that requiring compliance with state- or customer-issued requirements is not the kind of control examined in a Right to Control analysis. Although the DFW Airport’s requirements were extensive, the franchisor’s insistence that its independent contractor drivers follow those rules did not turn the drivers into the franchisor’s employees. That’s an important point for businesses to remember when they enter into independent contractor arrangements.

So where does that leave us? A million dead end streets and every time I thought I’d got it made, it seemed the taste was not so sweet.

The test keeps changing, depending on which political party controls the Board. For now, we’re back to a common law Right to Control Test when determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee under the NLRA.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

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

 

Supreme Court Ruling May Stop Enforcement of Some Contractors’ Arbitration Agreements

New Prime v Olivieri double decker bus

The year 1925 was a banner year for transportation. Walter Percy Chrysler founded the Chrysler Corporation, London introduced its first double decker bus, and Malcolm Campbell became the first person to exceed 150 mph in an aero-engined car, accomplishing the feat at Pendine Sands in Wales. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Meanwhile, back in the States, American courts had developed a habit of not enforcing arbitration agreements, and Congress was determined to change that. In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which is the law that allows parties to agree to arbitrate disputes and which tells courts to respect those agreements, subject to a few limited exceptions.

Those exceptions were at issue in the Supreme Court case of New Prime v. Olivieri, decided last week in an 8-0 decision. 

The Court ruled that:

(1) If there is a question about whether the FAA applies to an arbitration agreement, a court — not an arbitrator — decides whether the FAA protects the arbitration agreement. 

(2) The FAA’s exception — which says the FAA does not cover workers in the transportation industry — applies not just to employees in the transportation industry but also independent contractors. In other words, the FAA does not protect arbitration agreements entered into by independent contractors in the transportation industry.  

For business owners who wish to use arbitration agreements with their workers, what does this ruling mean?

I.  Who decides who decides?

Sometimes an arbitrator decides whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, and sometimes a court decides. Last month in the Henry Schein case, the Supreme Court held that an arbitrator can decide, in most instances, whether a dispute is covered under an arbitration agreement.

But last week’s New Prime case draws a distinction about who decides if the issue is whether the FAA applies to the dispute.

So, to simplify: On the issue of who decides whether a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, what’s the rule now? 

1. If the issue is whether the FAA protects the arbitration agreement, a court decides whether the FAA applies or not. (That’s the New Prime decision.)

2. If the FAA does apply and the issue is whether a particular dispute is subject to the agreement to arbitrate, then the arbitrator decides whether a dispute is subject to the agreement to arbitrate — assuming that the arbitration agreement has delegated to the arbitrator the ability to decide. (That’s the Henry Schein decision.)

The last sentence in Point 2 is the reason companies should consider adding a clause to their arbitration agreements saying that the arbitrator decides questions of arbitrability.

II.  How does the New Prime ruling apply to arbitration agreements with independent contractors? 

For independent contractors not in the transportation industry, this ruling does not apply. Arbitration agreements with independent contractors are generally enforceable and are protected by the FAA.

But how do we know the FAA doesn’t apply to all independent contractors in interstate commerce?

To answer that question, we need to head back to the Year 2001, a year after the electronic calendar shifted away from 19xx and technically-inclined doomsday prophets foretold of planes falling out of the sky. Shortly after mankind endured this potential calendar-caused calamity, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Circuit City Stores v. Adams.

The issue in Circuit City was whether the FAA applies to arbitration agreements between employers and employees. There is a carve out provision in the FAA, saying that the law favoring arbitration does not apply to “to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

The issue in Circuit City was whether the carve out for “contracts of employment” of “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” was intended to be broad and apply to all employees in interstate commerce or just those in the transportation industry. What was the intended meaning of “workers engaged in … interstate commerce”?

In Circuit City, the Court ruled that:

(1) the FAA generally does apply to arbitration agreements between employers and employees, but

(2) the FAA does not apply to workers in the transportation industry.

The Court decided that the phrase “workers engaged in … interstate commerce” was intended to refer only to workers in the transportation industry, not all workers. Arbitration agreements with employees in industries other than transportation would be enforceable under the FAA.

But that decision left open an important issue: What about independent contractors in the transportation industry? Do they have “contracts of employment”? Does the FAA apply to their arbitration agreements or not?

Fast forward to last week’s New Prime case.

The Supreme Court ruled that when the FAA was written in 1925, the phrase “contracts of employment” was understood to mean all work engagements, not just employer-employee relationships. Our understanding of the word “employment” has changed over time and, if that phrase were used in a statute today, it would likely refer only to true employer-employee relationships. But in 1925, it meant all work.

The Court therefore ruled that the FAA’s carve out applies to all workers in the transportation industry, regardless of whether such workers are employees or independent contractors. This means that arbitration agreements signed by employees or independent contractors in the transportation industry are not covered by the FAA, and therefore their agreements to arbitrate disputes are not protected by the FAA. Those disputes might have to go to court.

So what happens now?

First, the ruling is narrower than it may seem. The Court ruled only that the FAA did not apply to independent contractors’ arbitration agreements in the transportation industry.  It did not rule that these arbitration agreements were automatically void.

Many states have their own statutes that protect arbitration as a means for resolving disputes. Companies with workers in the transportation industry should check whether there is a state law that can be applied to protect these arbitration agreements.  If it would be reasonable to apply that state’s law, then companies should consider choosing that state’s law in the arbitration agreement’s Choice of Law provision. The right state’s law might still be able to save the arbitration agreement. We can expect further litigation on this subject, but here’s a tip for now. Try to pick a state with a favorable arbitration statute if your workers are in the transportation industry.

Second, we can expect the next battle to be over the meaning of the phrase, “transportation industry.” Does the “transportation industry” include only workers who transport goods across state lines? Or does the “transportation industry” include independent contractor drivers who transport passengers across town (such as ride share) or who deliver your pizza?

In Circuit City, the Supreme Court looked favorably on other court decisions that had defined the “transportation industry” to mean those workers “actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.” If that holds true, then local drivers of passengers and late-night food cravings should be considered not part of the “transportation industry.” The FAA, therefore, would still apply to those workers.

But we can expect the plaintiffs’ bar to argue for a broad interpretation of the “transportation industry.” We can now expect to see arguments that rideshare drivers and local delivery drivers are in the “transportation industry” and that their arbitration agreements are not protected by the FAA. I think that argument is incorrect, but I do expect to see it.

I would expect Courts of Appeal (and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court) to adopt a narrow view of the “transportation industry,” meaning that the FAA still applies to independent contractors who transport people or make local deliveries. I expect the courts to rule that the carve out from the FAA exempts only those workers (employees and contractors) who routinely transport goods across state lines.

For now, here’s what you need to know:

  • Arbitration agreements with independent contractors in the “transportation industry” are not protected by the FAA. It may be more difficult to enforce those arbitration agreements unless they are governed by the law of a state with its own arbitration statute.
  • Arbitration agreements with independent contractors outside of the transportation industry should remain enforceable under the FAA.

And the bottom line for me is that maybe it’s time for self-driving cars.

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, 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

 

Five Easy New Years’ Resolutions for Companies That Use Independent Contractors

new years resolutions

Now that the hangover has worn off and the calories have not, it’s time for 2019 New Years’ Resolutions. I know you didn’t ask for help, but you also didn’t not ask.

Here are some suggestions for those of you whose companies rely on independent contractors:

  1. Do you have one of those doorbells you can answer from anywhere? So do I. That’s because we’re cautious (syn., paranoid). Be similarly cautious that your non-legal, non-HR co-workers in management might retain independent contractors without your knowledge. Unleash your inner Anita Ward and make them Ring Your Bell. Set up a gatekeeper system that requires everyone to go through you before they can retain a non-employee worker. But don’t aim little cameras at their desks or you will lose friends.
  2. Update your Independent Contractor Agreements, even if you haven’t been sued yet. I am reminded of the time Bart Simpson exclaimed, “This is the worst day of my life!” and the wise yogi, Homer, responded helpfully, “–the worst day of your life so far.” (Here’s the clip.) Be prepared for if/when you are sued. Use the contract to highlight the facts that support independent contractor status. Be prepared.
  3. Don’t walk slowly in airports. This is (arguably) not directly related to the use of independent contractors, but it is important nonetheless because it drives everyone bonkers when people do it.
  4. Include arbitration clauses with class action waivers. In an alternative universe, your company has been sued by all of your independent contractors in a class action. In your reality, the contractor’s requirement to go at it alone in arbitration convinces your contractor that it’s not worth the effort to sue you, making you — who inserted the arbitration clause — the hero!
  5. Try this exercise: Do a simple self-audit. Check your company’s list of 1099 recipients for 2018 and see how many are individuals with SSNs, rather than entities with EINs. A long list with the names of a lot of individuals may be a sign that there are some independent contractor issues. That little exercise won’t burn off a single cookie, but it’s nonetheless a simple way to try to get a sense of how many independent contractors your business may have. The number is often greater than people realize.

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2019!

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, 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

 

What It Means to “Suffer” in California, Independent Contractor Version

suffer or permit to work California

This article describes how gestures that are common in the U.S. can have very different meanings abroad. For example, the “ok” finger gesture is a vulgar bodily reference in Brazil, Germany, and Russia. (Not ok!) The thumbs up gesture in Greece or the Middle East can mean “up yours!” The University of Texas’s “hook ‘em horns” gesture in Italy means you’ve been cuckolded — your wife is cheating on you.

Same thing, different meaning.

To employers, California often feels like a foreign country. It has some of the most employee-friendly laws in the nation, creating migraines for multi-state employers. When it comes to interpreting legal phrases, California lives up to its reputation, especially in the Employee vs. Independent Contractor context.

Today we look at California’s definition of “employ” as it relates to determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

California’s wage and hour laws are set forth in the state’s Industrial Wage Orders, a bulky set of directives that set the rules for minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, and various record keeping requirements for California employers. These rules apply only to employees, not independent contractors, but the test for determining Who Is My Employee? in California is different than under any federal law.

California’s Industrial Wage Orders use the same language to define “employ” as used in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). But fittingly, the Republic of California applies a different meaning to the same phrase.

California’s wage and hour laws provide three alternative definitions for “employ”: (1) to exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions, (2) to suffer or permit to work, or (3) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.

The FLSA also defines “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work.”

On Monday, we described how the FLSA’s “suffer or permit” standard is applied when determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

Today’s post describes California’s test for the same phrase. It’s different. Hook ‘em horns.

Historically, California courts have rejected the federal interpretation of “suffer or permit” as not being broad enough. California courts interpret the phrase more literally. If you permit someone to work, that person is likely your employee.

In April 2018, California’s Supreme Court set up a test that cemented that expansive interpretation into law.

In Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that, to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contract, an ABC Test must be used.

An ABC Test sets a higher bar than a Right to Control Test or an Economic Realities Test. It also sets a higher bar than California’s S.G. Borello test, which is the hybrid Right to Control/Economic Realities Test that California had been using since 1989 to answer the Employee vs. Independent Contractor question.

California’s ABC Test starts with the presumption that, for claims covered under California wage orders, every worker is an employee. Then, to prove otherwise, the business retaining that worker must prove (all 3):

(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.

Fail just one part, and the worker is an employee under California wage and hour law. This new test is even stricter than most other states’ ABC Tests, which usually include two ways that Part B can be satisfied.

As of now, the Dynamex test applies only to claims brought under California wage orders, we think.  These claims generally include minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest break claims. So far, this test does not appear to apply to claims such as failure to reimburse expenses or failure to provide employee benefits.

© 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.

2018_Web100Badge