Category Archives: Non-Employee Workers

10.27.25
by

Beware of Bright Shiny Objects: Home Health Care Company Gets Whacked in Misclassification Claim

Alabama jewelry store owner Slater Jones owns a two-carat diamond. That might not seem surprising, but stay with me here. Jones keeps the diamond in his eye. Literally, in his eye.

You see, Jones lost his right eye to illness. Rather than living with a boring old prosthetic eye that looks like, well, an eye, Jones engaged eye prosthetic expert John Lin to create a custom artificial eye from a diamond.

Having a diamond for an eye may seem a bit gaudy, but I guess if you’re in the jewelry business, you may as well just go for it.

Those in the home health care business, on the other hand, should not just go for it — especially if “it” is classifying in-home health aides as independent contractors.

In a settlement finalized earlier this month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a $9.5 million settlement against the individual owners of a home health care company for misclassifying its workers in violation of California law. In this case, the owners appears to have operated the home health agency as a d/b/a without having incorporated. Oopsie. The settlement included another $1.5 million against a different incorporated home health care entity and its family of owners.

The settlement also prohibited all of the defendants from classifying their aides as independent contractors in the future.

We have seen a lot of recent cases brought against home health care companies that classify their workers as independent contractors. This settlement is a stern warning that home health care companies choosing that model need to be extremely cautious.

Because this case was brought by the State, some of the protections we often recommend, like individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers, provide no protection. This case and the settlement also serve as a reminder that individuals can be held liable for intentional misclassification.

The claims brought against the agencies focused largely on California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Misclassification allegations under the UCL typically claim that the wrongdoer gained an improper advantage in the marketplace by unlawfully classifying employees as independent contractors.

Treating in-home aides as contractors may seem like a bright shiny object worth pursuing. But that sparkle you see is no diamond. It’s just the gleam in the eye of the State Attorney General, preparing to count the cash from another misclassification settlement.

Classify wisely, my friends.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.29.25
by

Clearing the Fog? New Joint Employer Test Is Being Considered for Franchisors

I took last week off work to visit Asheville. The first morning, we woke up at 5 am for a sunrise hike at Craggy Pinnacle, along the Blue Ridge Parkway. This was our view at the top.

Fortunately, the fog burned off after an hour or so. We waited and were rewarded with some spectacular views. Our 7-month old puppy Louie was just happy there were other dogs at the top to play with. Here he is, admiring the view.

The lesson, of course, is to be patient and sometime the fog will clear. (Or check the weather report?)

Franchisors are hoping for the same reward, through the proposed American Franchise Act, introduced in the House in September and now before the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

The bill, which has at least some bipartisan support, would change the definition of joint employment under the NLRA and FLSA for franchisee-franchisor relationships.

The bill would establish that a franchisor can be a joint employer only if it exercises “substantial direct and immediate control” over one or more “essential terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the franchisee.”

“Essential terms and conditions of employment” means wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.

To be a joint employer, the franchisor would have to control these terms with respect to individual employees. Setting baseline standards and brand guidelines would not create joint employment.

The risk of joint employment liability is an ongoing concern for franchisors. The franchise business model requires a level of control to ensure brand consistency and a uniform customer experience across locations. The American Franchise Act, if passed, would help to protect the franchise model and establish clear guidelines for what level of control is needed to create a joint employment relationship.

We’ll see if Congress decides to lift the fog.

Here’s a better view from the hike:

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.04.25
by

Gone the Way of Westarctica: Tax Bill Changes 1099 Reporting Rules

(AI mapmaking is fun!)

Harshvardhan Jain served ably as the Indian ambassador to Westarctica. And Seborga. And Ladonia. He drove fancy cars with diplomatic plates, and he worked out of an embassy in Ghaziabad, India.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Ghaziabad must be a made-up place name, right? Sorry, no, Ghaziabad is a real place. But Westarctica, Seborga, and Ladonia are not. Jain was arrested recently for operating fake embassies for made-up nations, using his high-falutin’ status to defraud potential business partners. Allegedly.

Goodbye to Westarctica. We hardly knew you.

Same sentiments to the tax rule requiring businesses to issue an IRS Form 1099 to contractors receiving $600 or more in a tax year. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, the threshold for issuing 1099s has been raised to $2000. The change goes into effect for 2026.

The effect will likely be that fewer contractors pay taxes on their earnings. Many contractors will figure that no one at the IRS is watching. And for the most part, they’ll probably be right.

The change is in Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code. If you look it up, you’ll see it. But don’t bother looking for Seborga on a map. You won’t see that anywhere — except maybe on Harshvarhan Jain’s business cards.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.21.25
by

Just Like the Dress: Why Balancing Tests for Worker Classification Can Be So Unpredictable

Remember the dress that broke the internet?

In 2015, this image was widely circulated on Facebook, with some people seeing the dress as white and gold, others seeing it as blue and black. Whichever camp you are in, you probably cannot understand how anyone could possibly think the dress is the other set of colors.

You can read more here if you want a refresher. But essentially it all comes down to neuroscience and differences in how people perceive color.

The core takeaway, though, was that two people could view the same object and reach opposite conclusions.

And so it goes with independent contractor misclassification disputes. A recent Fourth Circuit decision highlights the problem with the tools we use to assess whether a worker is properly classified. When a balancing test is used, different fact-finders can view the same evidence and reach opposite conclusions. And that’s exactly what happened here.

The case, Chavez-DeRemer vs. Medical Staffing of America d/b/a Steadfast, involved a staffing firm that provided independent contractor nurses to hospitals and medical clinics, as needed. The DOL launched an investigation in 2018, alleging that 1,100 nurses should have been classified by Steadfast as its employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL filed a lawsuit in federal court in Norfolk. After a bench trial, the judge ruled that under the FLSA’s six-factor Economic Realities Test, the nurses were employees. The judge awarded more than $9 million in damages.

Steadfast appealed. Last week, in a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Two judges agreed with the trial court, finding that the evidence supported employee status under the Economic Realities Test.

The dissenting judge disagreed vehemently. As in, how-can-you-possibly-think-the-dress-is-blue-and-black vehemently. The dissenting judge excoriated the majority for cherry-picking facts and ignoring the realities of the relationship.

All three judges, of course, were evaluating the same facts and the same record. All three judges were applying the same six-factor Economic Realities Test. Yet, they reached very different conclusions.

If this is depressing, it should be. It shows how unpredictable balancing tests can be.

The outcome is an important reminder of how important it is, when building independent contractor relationships, to consider every relevant factor and to nudge as many factors as possible to the independent contractor side of the scale.

There is no way to predict which facts a judge will find most persuasive and no way to predict how a judge will weigh the factors, especially since it is pretty much inevitable that there will be at least some factions on each side of the scale.

I see the dress as white and gold. I can’t understand how anyone would think it’s black and blue. Those people are insane.

Actually they’re not insane. (Well maybe they’re insane.)

In the Medical Staffing case, the dissenting judge couldn’t see how the other two judges could have possibly reached the conclusion that the nurses were misclassified. Businesses using independent contractor models need to be prepared that no matter how supportable they think their classification decision is, a judge or agency might reach the opposite conclusion, even from the same facts.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.30.25
by

Have a Seat: Alabama Passes Portable Benefit Bill for Contractors

I started to look up fun facts about Alabama and learned that the world’s largest office chair is in Anniston, Alabama. I was content with that find, but then I fell down a rabbit hole when I found this website, which lists other roadside attractions in the category of Oversized Chairs.

There’s a giant ladderback chair in Sebastopol, California. There’s a big chair you can drive under at the Los Angeles Merchandise Mart. Homer, Alaska has a big Adirondack-style chair, in case you’re headed out that way.

Whatever your destination, you may want to sit down and relax. I have some good news for a change.

Alabama passed a new law creating a portable benefit system for independent contractors. Unlike other portable benefit systems, this one allows for 100% tax deductibility for both contractors and the paying party for all contributions to the account.

Under the Portable Benefits Act (SB 86), contractors can create a portable benefit account through a third party. The account can be used to fund health insurance, life insurance, or other benefits. Starting in January 2026, funds contributed by the contractor are excluded from taxable income. Funds contributed by the party that retained the contractor are 100% tax-deductible.

The tax consequences here apply only to Alabama law, not federal tax law; but this is a solid step in the right direction for solo and small business owners.

The push by unions and some deep blue states to reclassify contractors as employees is motivated mainly by the desire to give contractors the same protections and benefits received by employees. If contractors have portable benefit accounts that can be funded tax-free, that certainly helps them and removes some of the incentive to reclassify.

There have been portable benefit bills passed in a few other states, with varying scopes. Utah and Tennessee, for example, have portable benefit programs, but neither offers 100% tax-deductibility.

There have been some efforts at the federal level to pass a nationwide portable benefits bill, but nothing is close to being passed.

In the meantime, this is good news for Alabama contractors and the companies that engage them. Y’all deserve to relax and enjoy a cocktail in an oversized comfortable chair. I’d recommend the big chair in Anniston, Alabama. California and Alaska are a bit too far a drive.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.23.25
by

Higher or No Hire? Don’t Forget This Minnesota Law When Working with Staffing Agencies

I searched in Apple Music for songs titled “Higher,” and it’s a pretty common song title. There are songs called “Higher” by Creed, Tems, Citizen Cope, TEC, burns Boy, Rihanna, DJ Khaled, Lemaitre, Chris Stapleton Michael Buble, Eminem and more. I stopped the list because you get the idea. If you want “Higher,” just search for songs, and you’ll have many to choose from.

But if instead you want “Hire,” and you’re in Minnesota, your options are much fewer. Or, actually, your options are much fewer if you want “No Hire.” Let me explain.

A Minnesota law enacted last summer bans service providers, including staffing agencies, from doing anything to “restrict, restrain, or prohibit” the hiring of its employees or independent contractors. That means a clause prohibiting direct hire is no longer allowed. The law also bans clauses that would prevent soliciting such workers for direct hire.

The law took effect July 1, 2024, and it applies to earlier contracts too, rendering these clauses void.

There are a few limited exceptions, such as for vendors providing professional business consulting for computer software development. But that’s a pretty narrow lane to try to drive your truck through. Reminds me of some tunnels I drove through in Northern Italy last fall. Not much room to maneuver. Especially when there’s a bus in the tunnel. They shouldn’t let buses in those tunnels.

A possible workaround is to impose direct hire fees, but those fees may be seen as “restrict[ing]” or “restrain[ing]” hiring. It’s unclear whether Minnesota courts will view direct hire fees as an unlawful restriction or restraint under this new law.

If your business provides or uses staffing services in Minnesota, check your contract. Same thing for contracts with other vendors who supply labor, such as consultants. If the contract prohibits direct hire of the vendor or staffing agency’s employees, that clause is probably now void.

And there are no good songs about laws that void contract clauses. I checked.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.09.25
by

Different Strokes: Be Careful With Choice of Law Clauses in IC Agreements

The phrase “Different strokes for different folks” originated in the 1960s and seems to have been popularized by Muhammad Ali. Describing his knock-out punches against Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, he said, “I got different strokes for different folks.”

In 1979, Ali appeared in the sitcom “Diff’rent Strokes,” which was probably named for the Ali quote and which was actually spelled that way and I can’t find anything that explains why. I guess when it comes to punctuation, different strokes for different folks?

Today’s post is a variation on that theme: Different states for different fates.

When drafting independent contractor agreements, choice of law matters. Choose carefully and thoughtfully. And remember three things:

First, state laws differ significantly on several subjects that might be relevant to your IC agreement — for when someone is considered an employee, for when non-competes can be enforced, for when non-solicitation agreements can be enforced, and for other terms that are likely to be in your contractor agreements. Don’t choose the law of a state that is less likely to enforce the clauses you want to include. If you can avoid California law for example, do yourself a favor and avoid California law.

Second, the state you choose needs to have some nexus to the parties or their relationship. Examples of a nexus that can justify use of a state’s law may be that one party is based there, or the work is being performed there, or (maybe) that one party is incorporated there. But there needs to be some connection.

Third, for worker classification disputes, the law of the state where the work is performed might apply anyway, since if a worker works in State A and the laws of State A would consider that person to be an employee, the parties cannot agree to contract out of the law of State A. But don’t concede so easily. Aim to apply the law of a favorable jurisdiction, even if there’s a chance that a court or arbitrator might disregard the choice of law clause in a classification dispute. Besides, there are going to be many other clauses in your agreement for which you’ll want the most favorable state law to apply.

For employment relationships, it is unlawful in some states (and unenforceable in others) to require application of the law of a state where the work is not performed, but it’s much less clear when and whether such laws apply to non-employment relationships.

The bottom line: Be strategic and thoughtful when inserting a choice of law provision in an independent contractor agreement. Depending on what law is applied to a particular issue or contract clause, the result and enforceability of that term may be different. Or diff’rent.

And the wrong choice of law could mean a knock-out punch for a clause you’d like to enforce.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.27.25
by

Rubbish? Ninth Circuit Upholds California’s ABC Test, Rejects Constitutional Challenge

(AI image generators are fun!)

In 1959, residents of São Paulo, Brazil, elected Cacareco to city counsel. Cacareco was a five-year and female and lived at the Sao Paulo zoo. She was a big girl, known to eat 70 pounds of vegetables a day. Cacareco was a rhinoceros.

Cacareco, which means “rubbish,” got on the ballot through a student prank. Her success is generally attributed to residents’ frustration with city officials over local conditions, which included unpaved streets and open sewers. Said one local, “Better to elect a rhino than an ass.”

Back in the U.S., businesses in California have been calling the state’s independent contractor test “rubbish” since it went into effect in 2020. A group of truckers, called the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) mounted one of the more persistent challenges to the law, known as AB 5, and that challenge finally resulted in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this month.

Unfortunately for the OOIDA and its owner-operator trucker members, the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of AB5 and rejected the truckers’ challenge to the law.

The truckers had argued that AB 5 violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce, which outweighs its putative benefits. the truckers also- argued that the law’s business-to-business exception violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against interstate commerce and violates the Equal Protection Clause because it treats interstate and intrastate drivers differently. the truckers argued that there is no rational basis to support this alleged disparate treatment.

The Ninth Circuit saw things differently. In an unpublished opinion, the court rejected each argument and upheld the law.

The ABC Test appears here to stay, and the chances of getting it overturned now seem about as likely as electing a rhinoceros to the California State Assembly.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.19.25
by

What Animals! New Jersey Proposes to Toughen Independent Contractor Test

In medieval Europe, it was not uncommon to put animals on trial for various crimes. In France, Italy, Switzerland, and elsewhere, courts tried pigs, dogs, rats, grasshoppers, and snails for crimes against people, property, and God. 

Examples include cases brought against vermin who dared to ransack stores of grain and prosecutions for pigs having maimed or killed people.

There’s a whole book about the practice, Chronological List of the Prosecution of Animals from the Ninth to the Twentieth Century, by E.P. Evans. I typed the name of the book in the search bar at Amazon. Apparently it is not available, and the site instead recommended that I purchase a DVD of Ransom, starring Mel Gibson. (?)

No, thank you.

I also say no, thank you to New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJ DLWD), which has proposed new independent contractor classification regulations.

The regulations would re-interpret NJ’s ABC Test in a way that would make it much harder to maintain IC status. The regulations would apply to the NJ Wage Payment Law, the Unemployment Compensation Law, and the Earned Sick Leave Law.

For years New Jersey has used an ABC Test, but with the standard version of part B, unlike California and Massachusetts, which have a strict version of part B.

To satisfy a standard ABC Test, like in NJ, the party engaging the contractor must prove (all three):

  1. The individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of work performed, both under contract of service and in fact; and
  2. The work is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or the work is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
  3. The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

The regulations would largely re-interpret part B to make it more like the strict version, which can be met only if the work is performed “outside the course of the business for which such service is performed.”

The regulation would essentially eviscerate the second option — that the work is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed — and make it nearly impossible to satisfy this alternative.

For example, under the regulations, the retaining party’s “place of business” could include any place where the work is typically performed, even customer’s homes.

The regulations would also make parts A and C harder to meet. In part A, for example, the regulations would declare that control exerted to make sure a contractor follows the law is relevant control that can convert the worker to an employee. But control exerted to ensure compliance with a law is control imposed by the government, which passed the law, not by the company retaining the contractor. This re-imagining of part A would be inconsistent with a multitude of court decisions that have addressed this issue.

I say no, thank you, because the regulation is not consistent with New Jersey law and is not consistent with how other courts around the country have interpreted the ABC factors. The NJ DLWD is supposed to apply the law, not change it. The NJ DLWD is not a legislative body and is not a court.

Nonetheless, it seems like there’s a good chance this will pass.

A 60-day public comment period began with the publication of the proposed rule on May 5. Companies that will be impacted by the rule should consider submitting comments. Page 1 of the proposed regulations explains how.

Misclassification in New Jersey is serious business. The state has been aggressive about pursuing legal action against companies that systemically misclassify workers as ICs. (But so far, no cases against pigs, dogs, rats, grasshoppers or snails. I think.)

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.06.25
by

DOL Softens Its Bite on Independent Contractor Rule

This is Louie. He’s 11 weeks old. He has the teeth of a shark. If you play with him and there’s no toy in his mouth, your arm is the toy. Or your foot. Or sometimes your face. In my house, we all look like we just played with a blender. But he’s awfully cute.

Late last week, the Department of Labor (DOL) made some news that won’t bite companies in the face.

Read more here.

Originally published 5/5/25 as a BakerHostetler alert.