NYC May Expand Anti-Discrimination Law to Cover Contractors, Interns

NYC anti discrimination gapI will admit, without shame, that in the 1980s, I loved the Gap Band. Songs like “You Dropped a Bomb on Me” and “Burn Rubber on Me” were just plain fun to listen to. Tip: Try it!

The band’s name didn’t refer to any actual gap — the name comes from the first letters of streets in Tulsa, Oklahoma — but I do know there are many gaps in anti-discrimination law, leaving some types of workers without adequate protection.  

The federal laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, like many (but not all) state laws, protect only employees. That leaves a gap. Independent contractors and interns who have been discriminated against may have no recourse.

The New York City Council is trying to close that gap.

In the same bill we excoriated on Monday for unfairly attacking the franchise model, the New York City Council also proposes to expand the protections of the City’s anti-discrimination law (section 8-107 of the Administrative Code) to protect independent contractors and interns, not just employees. 

Closing that gap makes sense. Hopefully this bill will be amended to keep the parts that expand anti-discrimination protection to non-employee workers (a good idea), while removing the parts that would expand liability to companies not responsible for the discrimination (a bad one).

© 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 204 other followers

NYC to Franchisors: We’re Going “Crazy on You”!

Barracuda NYCIn 1976, the band Heart released the album Dreamboat Annie. Soon after its release, the label (Mushroom Records) released a suggestive National Enquirer-style ad suggesting that sister Ann and Nancy Wilson might also be lesbian lovers. Ann’s outrage led her to write the song “Barracuda,” about ambush and false accusations.

A different Heart song title came to mind as I read the latest attempt by the New York City Council to hold franchisors responsible for acts they did not commit. 

A bill co-sponsored by 19 council members would amend the City’s anti-discrimination law to hold franchisors strictly liable for discriminatory acts by their franchisee. We have seen many attempts to expand the definition of “joint employer” to include franchisors, but this proposal goes beyond anything we’ve seen. This bill doesn’t even deal with the concept of “joint employment.” It just says that franchisors are liable for discriminatory acts of their franchisees, without any analysis of their involvement in the discriminatory acts or their level of control over the franchisee. It’s automatic.

That’s crazy. Holding one company strictly liable for the wrongful acts of another raises all sorts of legal concerns and, if passed, the bill will certainly be challenged in court.

Franchisors, the Council wants to go “Crazy on You.”

Now, truth be told, in the Heart song, going “Crazy on You” has a very different meaning than I intend it here. Ann Wilson and Roger Fisher (her bandmate, co-writer, and lover) meant it in an amorous way, but there is certainly no love between NYC and franchisors. The attacks by NYC on the franchisor-franchisee relationship are more like those of the sharp-toothed predator of the sea, the Barracuda.

© 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 204 other followers

Extra Pepperoni! Domino’s Fends Off Joint Employment Claims

Pizza Food Slice Cheese Mushroom Veggies V

Domino’s Pizza in Russia recently had to cancel a promotion offering free pizza for life to anyone who got a tattoo of the Domino’s logo after too many people tatted up. The Russian franchisee that offered the promotion was overwhelmed by the response. It canceled the scheduled two-month promotion after just four days.

Franchise owners have to adhere to brand standards, but they have flexibility on other things, such as how vigorously to encourage their customers to ink. It can be confusing to the public, however, which decisions are made by franchisors and which decisions are made by franchisees. Not surprisingly, this confusion extends to employment situations, where claims of joint employment are frequently asserted against franchisors, even though individual employment decisions are made by franchisees.

In a delicious decision for franchisors, a New York federal court has ruled that Domino’s Pizza’s corporate entities are not joint employers of the employees who work at individually owned Domino’s franchises – at least under federal and New York State wage and hour law. (Click here for Five Things You Should Know About Joint Employment.)

Joint employment claims are a constant threat in the franchise space. Major restaurant and fast food franchisors are frequently alleged to be joint employers when plaintiffs bring employment lawsuits against individual franchisees. The franchisors (like Domino’s) are viewed as the deep pockets and, by targeting the franchisor’s corporate office, plaintiffs can try to build class actions that include groups of employees across multiple franchises. Or, by tagging a franchisee as a joint employer, plaintiffs can feel more confident that enough dollars will be available to pay any judgment.

The court’s ruling, which granted summary judgment to Domino’s corporate entities, evaluated the plaintiffs’ joint employment claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) using a two-part Economic Realities Test.

Following guidance from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court looked at two sets of factors: one set to assess formal control exercised by the franchisor, and the second set to assess functional control by the franchisor. (That’s not the test used everywhere.)

As is typical in franchisor-franchisee relationships, the franchisee (store owner) signed a franchise agreement, agreeing that it – not the franchisor – “shall be solely responsible for recruiting, hiring, training, scheduling for work, supervising and paying the persons who work in the Store and those persons shall be [franchisee’s] employees, and not [franchisor’s] agents or employees.”  The agreement required the franchisee to adhere to brand standards to ensure consistency in product, but individual employment decisions were to be made at the store level, not by the franchisor.

Based on this framework, the court analyzed the facts using the formal control factors and the functional control factors.

The formal control factors included whether the franchisor:

  1. had the power to hire and fire the employees,
  2. supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment,
  3. determined the rate and method of payment, and
  4. maintained employment records.

The functional control factors for determining joint employment, some of which do not even make sense in the context of a franchise relationship, are:

  1. whether the alleged employers’ premises and equipment were used for the plaintiffs’ work;
  2. whether the subcontractors had a business that could or did shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another;
  3. the extent to which [the] plaintiffs performed a discrete line job that was integral to the alleged employers’ process of production;
  4. whether responsibility under the contracts could pass from one subcontractor to another without material changes;
  5. the degree to which the alleged employers or their agents supervised [the] plaintiffs’ work; and
  6. whether [the] plaintiffs worked exclusively or predominantly for the alleged employers.

After evaluating the facts using these factors, the court ruled that the Domino’s corporate franchisor entities were not joint employers. The franchisor entities were therefore dismissed from the lawsuit, but the court allowed the case to continue against the individual franchise owners.

The decision is refreshing for franchisors, but not too refreshing.  As noted here, other Courts of Appeal – mainly the Fourth Circuit – apply different tests for determining whether a company is a joint employer under the FLSA, even though the FLSA is a federal law that you would think would be interpreted the same way all across the country.

The test for joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act is different too – and is likely to change again.  It is possible for a company to be a joint employer under one law or test but not under other laws or tests. There is no uniformity or consistency.

For now, franchisors should rejoice in this small victory, but the fight to protect franchisors against joint employment claims is far from over — unlike the Russian tattoo promotion, which is entirely kaput.

© 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 204 other followers

NYC to Cap Number of Uber, Lyft Drivers

Traffic uber lyft NYC law suspect TLC license

In the Jimi Hendrix song, Crosstown Traffic, Jimi plays a nifty little riff with a makeshift kazoo constructed from a comb and tissue paper. The lyrics compare trying to get through to his lady friend with trying to get through Manhattan’s cross-town traffic, which was already bad in 1967. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

News Alert: New York City Has Bad Traffic!

So whose fault is that?

In a gut punch to the gig economy, New York City just passed an ordinance that will place a one-year ban on granting new licenses for ride hailing vehicles.

To drive using Uber or Lyft in NYC, you need a license from the Taxi and Limousine Commission (a different kind of TLC). During this one-year suspension period, the city will conduct a study on traffic and congestion and will examine driver compensation.

According to this Wall Street Journal article and nifty graph, since the emergence of Uber and Lyft as ride-share options, the value of NYC taxi medallions has plummetted from about $1 million to roughly $200,000; and since 2015, the number of TLC-licensed drivers (cabs and ride-sharing services) has more than doubled. The City points to increased congestion as the reason to suspend the issuance of new TLC licenses for a year.

The ride-share companies argue that the cap will limit the number of available drivers in outer boroughs, increasing New Yorkers’ wait times.

Is the City’s motivation really to address traffic congestion? Or is the idea instead intended to help the struggling taxi industry? Hmmmm.

Under the new law, licenses that have already been granted are not being taken away.

In case you were interested (or even if you are not), here are the general requirements for obtaining a license from TLC if you want to drive. [Uber, Lyft]

But for the next 12 months, the application process will be “just like crosstown traffic,
So hard to get through to you.”

© 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 204 other followers

 

Do ABC Tests Matter if my Business is not in California? (Yes!!!)

ABC Test Califoirnia Dynbamex Massachusetts other states

According to Michael Jackson and his brothers (don’t forget Tito), ABC is easy as 1-2-3, and it’s also easy as do-re-mi. According to Julie Andrews, in Do-Re-Mi, once you know the notes to sing, you can sing most anything. This is not technically true, as once demonstrated by William Hung.

ABC may sound easy, and some people might think they can sing anything.  But actual compliance with ABC Tests is not easy — and yes, every business needs to think about how it would comply with ABC Tests. (For background on What is an ABC Test?, read here and here.)

ABC Tests are not just in California. Massachusetts uses an ABC Test to determine who is an employee under state wage law. New Jersey uses an ABC Test to determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor for state wage law. Unemployment too.

For unemployment purposes, lots of states use ABC tests to determine whether someone seeking unemployment coverage was your employee or an independent contractor. These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. There are more but I started prioritizing my list by number of electoral votes.

Because ABC Tests are stricter than ordinary balancing tests (like Right to Control or Economic Realities tests), your company may be required to make unemployment contributions for individuals who are independent contractors under most laws but are employees under your state’s unemployment compensation law. You could owe back assessments and penalties for failing to pay into the state unemployment insurance fund.

New York, Pennsylvania, and D.C. use ABC Tests for work performed in the construction industry.

Some states use even tougher multi-factor tests to determine whether an individual presumed to be an independent contractor is really an employee. Maine has an ABCDE Test, meaning each of five factors must be met (plus another 3 from a list of 7, creating a veritable menu of family-style Chinese take-out for misclassification). New Hampshire uses an ABCDEFG Test to determine whether someone is an employee subject to its workers compensation and wage and hour laws.

Congressional Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and his hair, have introduced a bill that would use an ABC Test to determine whether someone is an employee under the NLRA. The bill has no chance to become law unless (until?) the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, but for now, it’s worth noting that there is a desire among some lawmakers to adopt sweeping changes to the definition of employee.

The point is that ABC tests are prevalent already — and they are expanding. The California decision adopting an ABC Test was issued three years after the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted a similar (but less stringent) ABC Test for its state wage and hour laws.

With more state legislatures and state supreme courts considering changing the tests, we can expect this trend to continue. We can expect more states to adopt ABC Tests, especially in states where the courts (like in California) make up ABC Tests without legislative input. For a legislature to pass an ABC Test, it takes some work, bicameral support, and usually the signature of a governor. For courts to make up new ABC Tests, however, it’s easy as 1-2-3, do-re-mi.

Business should be thinking proactively about whether their contracts, relationships, and public-facing statements (such as in websites) will allow them to support independent contractor status when an ABC Test is used to determine WhoIs My Employee?

© 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 204 other followers

 

NYC Freelancer Law & New Rules Now In Effect, But New Rules Could Violate Federal Law

new york city freelancer law new rulesIf you retain freelancers in New York City, pay attention.

As we wrote here, NYC’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act requires a written agreement when retaining an individual independent contractor, if the value of services is $800 or more. The law covers any individual non-employee, including nannies and babysitters. (Loyal readers, please read this earlier post for details.)

The law took effect May 15, 2017, but new rules — effective July 24, 2017 — create additional burdens.

The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs has published final rules implementing the Act. While the purpose of the rules is (supposedly) to clarify the Act, the Rules go much further and create new requirements — some of which may be contrary to federal law.

Continue reading

What’s Up? Black Car Drivers Are Independent Contractors. Here’s Why.

balloons-1786430_1280At the end of Pixar’s Up, Carl and Russell sit on a curb pointing out cars: “Red one!” “Blue one!” Then Dug (the dog) calls out “Gray one!” which I find endlessly funny every time I watch it.

Whatever color the car, they sat there content, eating ice cream.

Black car companies in New York are celebrating too (hopefully with ice cream), after a recent decision preserving their drivers’ status as independent contractors. In Salem v. Corporate Transportation Group, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that drivers were not entitled to overtime pay, since they were not employees, but rather independent contractor franchisees.

We’ve written often in this blog about the different tests for determining Who Is My Employee? This case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and comparable New York law, so the Court applied an Economic Realities Test. This test measures whether workers are economically dependent on one company to earn a living or are in business for themselves.

Relying on the Economic Realities factors, the Court ruled the drivers were economically independent and were in business for themselves. Here are the keys to victory:

  1. The drivers purchased franchises, choosing from a variety of options (rent, own);
  2. The drivers used their own cars and paid all their own expenses;
  3. The drivers could drive for competitors or for personal clients;
  4. The drivers were entrepreneurs, controlling many significant aspects of their personal driving business;
  5. The drivers were free to accept or reject jobs;
  6. The drivers chose when, where, and how often to work; and
  7. The franchisor company could not freely terminate the drivers’ franchise agreements.

While independent contractor relationships remain under fire, this decision shows that there’s still hope. Companies can win these cases when they carefully construct the facts, relinquish control, and allow contractors to run their own enterprises.

Although these drivers had considerable discretion over how to run their individual businesses, none (unfortunately) had the creativity to ditch the car and transport customers in a helium-balloon powered house.  Now back to the film.

film-158157_1280

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.