Category Archives: Non-Employee Workers

02.17.20
by

Lost Chicken, Very Friendly: 2020 IRS Tips on Independent Contractor Status Are Now Available

Years ago, I signed up for the Next Door app, thinking it might be helpful to hear about things going on in my neighborhood. Most of the posts I see are useless — Can anyone recommend a good restaurant? Is it gonna snow tonight? Does Solon have any good proctologists?

I was ready to unsubscribe but just hadn’t gotten around to it. But then, last week, I got the post that made it all worthwhile:

36204067-6829-41E5-8647-D9C3FF88FABC

I should have clicked “Thank,” because I really do want to thank D. from South Central Solon for that post. The best part, of course, is the armchair psychoanalysis of Lost Chicken’s personality: “Very friendly.” (Lost Chicken also scores high for empathy and teamwork.)

Also known for being “Very friendly” is the IRS. New for 2020 is the Employer’s Supplemental Tax Guide, also known by its catchier, more taxlike moniker, Publication 15-A. Please don’t take my copy. You can get your own here.

Publication 15-A includes a section on independent contractor misclassification. It reminds employers that the IRS uses a Right to Control Test, which evaluates factors related to behavioral control, financial control, and the type of relationship of the parties. The specific factors are listed.

To improve readership, the IRS offers several helpful hypotheticals to illustrate the Independent Contractor vs. Employee conundrum, using memorable characters such as Vera Elm, an electrician; and Helen Bach, an auto mechanic. (But I see Helen Bach as more of a resurrected doomsday cult leader. I’m going to assume that the person who wrote this hypothetical pulled one over on the supervisor who approved it. Well played, IRS writer. Well played.)

Publication 15-A provides other helpful tips for employers at tax time. Get yours now, while supplies last. I’m going to offer a few extra copies on the Next Door app.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

02.10.20
by

If I Told You Once, I Told You 55,000 Times! These NYC Employment Laws Now Apply to Contractors

NYCHRL independent contractors 8-107(23)A Twinsburg, Ohio man received a statement in the mail for his daughter’s student loan. And then another. And another. And another. The lender sent him 55,000 identical letters filling 79 bins at the post office.

Even better, all of the statements were wrong. They provided an incorrect payment amount.

A recent change to New York City’s Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) doesn’t need to be explained 55,000 times. But it does need to be explained once. Correctly.

Effective January 11, 2020, the protections under the NYCHRL now apply to independent contractors, including freelancers. That means, under NYC law:

  • It is now unlawful to discriminate, harass, or retaliate against an independent contractor, based on any protected class;
  • Businesses must provide reasonable accommodations, including for needs related to pregnancy, lactation, religious observances, sexual offenses, or stalking;
  • Businesses must engage in a “cooperative dialogue” with any contractor seeking an accommodation and must provide a written determination of any accommodation that was granted or denied;
  • Businesses must follow the Fair Chance Act requirements before taking any adverse action based on the results of a criminal background check, including providing a written Artcile 23-A analysis;
  • Businesses cannot inquire about salary history;
  • Businesses cannot perform a credit check (maybe; this is unclear); and
  • Businesses may need to provide sexual harassment training to contractors, depending on the number of hours worked.

For those keeping score at home, the change is to Section 8-107(23) of the NYCHRL. This one little sentence does all the work: “The protections of this chapter relating to employees apply to interns, freelancers and independent contractors.” Boom!

The law applies to businesses in New York City that had four or more workers, including independent contractors, at any time in the previous 12 months.

The law does not apply to wage and hour issues like minimum wage and overtime payments, and the law does not change the test for determining whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee.

The Commission has published some additional guidance on how this will work, especially the sexual harassment training part. You can read it online. Thankfully, the Commission didn’t send it 55,000 times to every business in the mail.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

02.03.20
by

Bring Forth the Tiger-Dogs! Here’s a Quick Status Check on the Challenges to California’s New Independent Contractor Law

Tiger independent contractor dynamex california

Not an actual tiger. Or a dog.

When outside forces pose a threat to people’s livelihood, people will go to great lengths to fight back.

For example, when monkeys began ravaging the crops of a farmer in Karnataka, India, the imaginitive farmer painted his dog to look like a tiger, to scare away the pesky invaders. [Photo here.]

Business owners in California are taking more conventional measures to fight back againt the tyranny of Assembly Bill 5, the new California law that seeks to reclassify many of the state’s independent contractors as employee. Here’s a quick summary of the resistance:

  • Owner-operator truckers claim the new California law cannot be applied to them because of a federal law (FAAAA) that prohibits states from enacting their own laws that affect the “price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property.” They won a preliminary injunction last month, temporarily preventing the law from applying to them.
  • Freelance writers and photographers are challenging the law too. The law has an exception for freelancers, but the exemption goes away if freelancers submit 35 or more pieces to a single publication. In other words, they’re independent contractors for submissions #1 through #34, but they instantly become employees with submission #35. They argue that the exemption is arbitrary and violates their First Amendment and equal protection Rights.
  • Rideshare and food delivery apps filed their own lawsuit, alleging that the exemptions are arbitrary and violate their equal protection and due process rights.
  • Five gig economy app companies have contributed $110 million to a ballot measure that will be voted upon in the November 2020 election if the measure collects 625,000 signatures. The law would exempt app-based gig economy drivers from the new test if the companies provide workers with specific levels of pay, benefits, and rights, which are defined in the proposal.
  • Republican lawmakers have proposed a constitutional amendment (A.C.A. 19) called the “Right to Earn a Living Act,” which would overturn Assembly Bill 5 and enshrine in California law “the right to pursue a chosen business or profession free from arbitrary or excessive government interference.” The amendment would reinstate California’s S.G. Borello balancing test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is considering whether the 2018 Dynamex decision, which first imposed the ABC Test for wage and hour claims, applies retroactively. If it does, then businesses can be liable for failing to comply with a test that did not yet exist. Really.

That’s a lot of action, and we’ll continue to watch for new developments. Meanwhile, California businesses that use independent contractors should tread carefully, follow the status of legal challenges, and paint their dogs to look like tigers — just in case that turns out to be effective.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

01.27.20
by

When The Rules Do Not Apply: Freelancers’ Lawsuit Challenges California’s New ABC Test

piano IMG_2111

I was headed to an appointment last week when I came upon this sign. Sometimes the people who make the rules just assume the rules don’t apply to them. Or sometimes people don’t even think about the rules and whether they make sense.

I was tempted to take the sign off the piano, in the interests of following the directive on the sign. But I just took a picture instead.

This post is about when the rules should apply.

Since California’s new ABC Test law (Assembly Bill 5) went into effect January 1st, the legal challenges have been rolling in. (See this post, for example.) The latest groups to challenge the new law are freelance writers and photographers.

Wanna know something absurd? Of course you. We all do. That’s why we read the internet on our phones during meetings. Under the new law, freelancers are exempt from the ABC Test — and can likely remain independent contractors — if they make 35 or fewer submissions to a publication in a year. But with the 36th submission, the ABC Test suddenly applies, meaning that same freelancer would more likely become an employee, retroactive to the first submission.

What is so special about the 36th submission that would convert a freelancer from an independent contractor to an employee? All together now: “Nothing!” This law is ridiculous. A newly filed lawsuit asks a court to invalidate that limit on the basis that it is arbitrary, which it absolutely is. The lawsuit alleges that the arbitrariness violates the freelancers’ Equal Protection and First Amendment Rights.

Freelancers don’t want to be employees for two reasons.

First, works created by contractors are owned by the contractors, who can license the works and earn a fee. That’s how they make money — and is the reason why freelance journalists are all so rich. (That’s for my daughter, who’s in journalism school and doesn’t eat ramen noodles. Yet.) In contrast, under the U.S. Copyright Act, works created by an employee are owned by the employer. That means the freelancer who created the work loses the rights to it. So, if we apply the new rule, that would mean Submission #36, which likely converts the freelancer to a retroactive employee, also converts ownership of Submissions #1-35 to the employer. No way that’s fair.

Second, for every action there’s a reaction. Publishers are not stupid. They don’t want freelancers to become their employees either. So what will they do once a freelancer hits the 35-submission limit? They won’t accept any more submissions. That hurts the publication and the freelancer. Or maybe they will want some freelancers to become their employees so they can commandeer ownership of Submissions #1-35. Either way, this is absurd.

If you’d like to read more, here’s a copy of the complaint. The lawsuit is pending in federal court in the Central District of California.

And please don’t place anything on top of the piano.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

01.20.20
by

Voters Would Reject This Flight Option, But They Could Change Independent Contractor Law in California This November

Expensive flight

A few years back, I found myself headed to the Houston airport earlier than expected after a business trip. I decided to check my phone to see whether I could get on an earlier flight back home to Cleveland.

Turns out I could — for $52,270. For coach. There was also a first class seat available. For $69,570.

I declined and decided to wait the three hours for my originally scheduled departure. But for good measure, I took this screenshot because, hey, why not.

Taking the earlier flight would not have been a good use of my money. The real subject of this post is about five app-based companies who are making much better use of their money.

With app-based companies under constant attack through independent contractor misclassification claims, and with California’s new Assembly Bill 5 making it even harder to classify people as independent contractors, the major providers are fighting back.

They’ve pledged $110 million to support a ballot initiative in California that would redraw the lines in the Employee vs. Independent Contractor debate — at least for rideshare and delivery drivers.

Under current federal and state laws, a worker is either an independent contractor or an employee. It’s binary. Employees get lots of protections. Contractors get almost none. There’s no third category that would allow rideshare and delivery drivers to operate independently while receiving a minimum level of legal protection.

This proposed initiative would change that. The law would create new rules for app-based transportation providers and drivers in California.

If the initiative passes, the new ABC Test would not apply to workers in the app-based rideshare and delivery business. Instead, those workers could stay classified as independent contractors, but the app-based companies must ensure that the drivers receive a predetermined level of compensation and benefits, including:

  • Earnings Minimum. The measure would require app-based companies to pay at least 120 percent of the minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving—but not time spent waiting for requests.
  • Health Insurance Stipend. The measure would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide a health insurance stipend of about $400 per month to drivers who regularly work more than 25 hours per week (not including waiting time). Drivers who average 15 driving hours per week but less than 25 driving hours would receive half as much.
  • Medical Expenses and Disability Insurance. The measure would require that companies buy insurance to cover driver medical expenses and provide disability pay when a driver is injured while driving.
  • Rest Policy. The measure would prohibit drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company.
  • Other. The measure would require that rideshare and delivery companies have sexual harassment prevention policies and conduct criminal background checks and safety training for all drivers. It also would prohibit discrimination in hiring and firing.

The measure would also prevent cities and counties from passing further restrictions on driver classification.

The initiative needs 625,000 signatures to appear on the November 2020 ballot in California. I expect they’ll get the signatures, and then the media campaign will kick into high gear. Expect TV and radio ads, billboards, and a heavy social media push to garner support.

If the ballot measure passes, that will have been money well spent — a much wiser use of resources than for some dodo to pay $52,270 to take an earlier flight home from Houston. The proposed law would create a fairer and more predictable set of rules for drivers and companies, and it should substantially reduce the rampant misclassification lawsuits in the rideshare and delivery driver area.

I’ll be watching for similar proposed legislation in other states. And I’ll be watching airfares too, before I switch any future flights.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

01.06.20
by

Dead or Not Dead? Schreiber Lives On, But California’s New ABC Test Is Temporarily Killed for Owner-Operator Truckers

Prison dead independent contractor ABC TestWhen Benjamin Schreiber was sentenced to life in prison for clubbing a man to death with the wooden handle of a pickaxe, he probably expected to die in prison. But then fate intervened. Or did it?

In 2015, Schreiber fell severely ill in the Iowa State Penitentiary and had to be resuscitated five times. Schreiber then filed for post-conviction relief. He argued that he did, in fact, die in prison. Since he had to be resuscitated, he must have died, which means that he had successfully completed his “life sentence” — just before being resuscitated.

The argument failed. The judge ruled, “Schreiber is either alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”

The decision did not say how many points Schreiber was awarded for creativity.

Two time zones west of Iowa, the California Truckers Association had better luck in its effort to kill California’s new ABC Test for independent contractor misclassification, at least as far the law applies to owner-operator truckers.

On December 31, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing California from applying the new ABC Test to owner-operator truckers.  That means, for now, the question of whether an owner-operator trucker is an employee or an independent contractor must still be determined under the S.G. Borello balancing test in California, not the strict new ABC Test.

This is just a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling, so it is subject to further review even at the district court level, before the inevitable appeal.

The winning argument (for now) is that the law imposing the new ABC Test, Assembly Bill 5, is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA).  The FAAAA preempts state law that affects the price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property.

The federal circuit courts of appeals are split on whether the FAAAA preempts state independent contractor laws as they relate to owner-operators in the transportation industry.  The 7th and 3rd Circuits have held that there is no preemption.  The 1st Circuit has held that there is preemption.

Ultimately, the question is likely to be settled by the Supreme Court.

For right now, the balancing test has been resuscitated for owner-operator truckers, but only a little bit like Mr. Schreiber’s resuscitation.

Hopefully, the stay will remain in effect until the case makes its way up the appellate ladder. And hopefully, dead is dead when it comes to the ABC Test and owner-operators.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

12.16.19
by

Octopus vs. Bald Eagle: Postmates to Defend 5,225 Individual Arbitration Claims

Bald eagle octopus postmates

The best laid plans can sometimes take an unexpected turn for the worse. Just ask this octupus.

Earlier this month, off the coast of Vancouver Island, an octopus was settling down for a meal consisting of one whole bald eagle, freshly caught but still alive. A team of nearby salmon fishermen heard the bald eagle’s screams and, having been trained in speaking eagle, immediately recognized the distress call. The salmon fishermen sprang into action. They poked the soft-bodied mollusc with a pole until it released the bird. The eagle survived, and the fishermen got some footage that made it onto CNN’s website.

While I love octopi (delicious when grilled), I like to think that I too would have favored the eagle when interfering with a battle sponsored by mother nature.

The delivery app company Postmates is also dealing with an unexpected turn of events, but this one involves no sea creatures or birds of prey. In defending a claim of independent contractor misclassification brought by thousands of delivery drivers, Postmates prevailed in showing that the drivers were bound by arbitration agreements with class action waivers. If the drivers wanted to proceed, they would have to arbitrate their claims one-by-one, all 5,225 of them.

Guess what happened next.

The plaintiffs’ firm representing the drivers filed 5,225 individual arbitration claims with AAA.

Faced with having to pay $10 million in arbitration filing fees, Postmates has been trying to figure out how that would work. Can AAA even handle 5,225 simultaneous arbitrations? After Postmates missed an initial AAA payment deadline, the plaintiffs’ firm filed a motion to hold Postmates in contempt for not paying the AAA fees.

Postmates is now defending the contempt motion and trying to figure out, logistically, how to proceed.

Arbitration agreements can be helpful to businesses that have lots of independent contractors, mainly because the agreements can include class action waivers. But this dispute shows the potential downside of class action waivers. A sophisticated plaintiffs’ class action firm can file thousands of simultaneous arbitration demands, flooding the system and leaving the company on the hook for millions of dollars in filing fees alone — before even getting to the merits or defense of a claim.

We’ll see how this one plays out. It’s an unexpected turn of events, much like the octopus getting poked by an eagle-defending salmon fisherman at dinner time.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

12.09.19
by

Is Another Strict ABC Test About to Muddy the Independent Contractor Waters?

NJ ABC Test independent contractorAccording to this article about the Garden State, New Jersey is about more than just the Sopranos and Snooki. Here are three fun facts about NJ:

1. Considered the “Diner Capital of the Country,” NJ has an estimated 525 diners. (I’m assuming from context that more than 525 New Jerseyans dine out, that “diners” here means those breakfast-themed restaurants that often look like rail cars, and that Uber Eats isn’t quite yet so dominant that the other 9 million NJ-ers eat at home every night.)

2. The first modern submarine ride was taken in NJ’s Passaic River. (I find this hard to believe but, if true, I’m sure the scenery was lovely.)

3. NJ was home to the first intercollegiate football game, Rutgers vs. Princeton. (The game is still in a scoreless tie.)

Another less fun fact about NJ is that its legislature may be about to adopt one of the strictest tests for independent contractor misclassification in the country. A recently proposed bill would model the state’s test for independent contractor vs. employee on the new California ABC Test.

New Jersey already uses a type of ABC Test for its wage and hour laws, but the bill would make Part B of the test much harder to meet — like California’s new law, Assembly Bill 5.

It’s no lock that the proposed law will pass, but if I am a betting man — and, fun fact, sports wagering is now legal in NJ — I would bet this one will become law sometime in 2020.

Until then, at least we can all enjoy the diner and submarine scene.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

12.02.19
by

A Grub’s Life: Joint Employer Test or Single Employer Test. What’s the Difference?

This product kills and prevents grubs. That’s good if you have a garden, bad if you’re a grub. But in either case, there’s quite a difference between preventing grubs — that is, keeping them away but allowing them to live a happy grublike existence elsewhere, like in your neighbor’s garden — and killing the grubs.

Nuance, my friends. Small differences matter, especially to the grub.

Today’s post is about how the joint employer question is different than the single employer question.

Here’s the difference. Suppose Mary is employed by the We-Provide-Services Company. Company B retains the We-Provide-Services Company to do something or other. Mary sues both We-Provide-Services and Company B, claiming discrimination of some sort. If the We-Provide-Services Company and Company B are unrelated independent businesses, the issue is whether they are joint employers. There’s a test for that.

If the We-Provide-Services Company and Company B are related, such as through common ownership, intermingled managers, or a subsidiary or joint venture relationship, then the issue is whether they are a single employer for purposes of assessing who is liable for any bad acts toward poor Mary. There’s a test for that too, but it’s a different test.

The single employer test looks at four factors that try to assess how closely related or intermingled the companies are.

The joint employment test focuses instead on Company B’s relationship to Mary, not it’s relationship with Mary’s direct employer, the We-Provide-Services Company. (Courts in the Fourth Circuit look at this issue differently, as explained here, but this is the general rule.)

A recent case from North Dakota helps to illustrate the difference — and the confusion.

The issue related to whether a contractor’s employee was also an employee of the party that retained the contractor. The two businesses were unrelated, so this is a question of joint employment.

The lawyers on both sides, however, missed the nuanced difference. Both sides briefed the issue by presenting the judge with the single employer test and arguing about how the facts fit its four factors.

This kind of mistake is not uncommon, and judges do it too. There’s so much nuance in the laws related to Who Is My Employee?, and lots of lawyers and judges don’t understand the intricacies. Fortunately, this federal judge understood the difference. The judge’s opinion discusses the fact that the lawyers argued the wrong test, and he instead applied the facts to the proper test — a common law agency test. He called it a hybrid right to control/economic realities test, but as a practical matter, the factors were a recitation of the common law right to control test.

The point is: Be aware of the nuanced differences in circumstances that require the use of different legal tests to determine Who Is My Employee?

Which test you use can make a big difference. Even if you’re not a grub.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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

 

11.04.19
by

Proposed Law Would Radically Change App Driver Protections and Legal Status; Might Also Stop Zombie Ant Apocalypse (Maybe).

california driver app law ant zombiesYou’re supposed to learn something new every day, right? Here’s something that’s definitely new, unless you are a fungus aficionado — and, lucky reader, because this is a read-only post, you do not have to identify yourself if you are indeed a fungus aficionado, and if you are, TMI, and keep it to yourself.

Anyway, there’s a fungus that attacks certain kinds of ants, takes over their ant-body cells, turns them into zombies, causes them to take a final mad bite into a certain type of leaf, then causes a plant spore to sprout from their heads. Yes, really. It’s right here in this New York Times article, complete with pictures.

The Ophiocordyceps fungus is not a dinosaur, despite its suspiciously dinosaur-sounding name, but it sounds pretty ferocious and looks like it’s threatening to kill off segments of the ant population.

Another thing that is ferocious and threatening to kill something off is California’s recent Assembly Bill 5, which would convert many independent contractors into employees under state labor laws.

The latest attempt to eradicate that ferocious law comes in the form of a ballot initiative being sponsored by some of the large ride hailing and delivery app companies.

The Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, if passed, would preserve the independent contractor status of app-based drivers in California if the app companies provide the drivers with a number of financial considerations and benefits, along with allowing the drivers to maintain control over when and where they work. The law imposes substantial driver protections that app companies are currently hesitant to provide, out of fear that providing these benefits and protections might cause the drivers to be deemed employees.

The law would strike a much-need balance that enhances driver rights while creating certainty on drivers’ classification status.

The app companies would have to provide an earnings guarantee of at least 120% of the local minimum wage for time engaged, a 30-cents per mile stipend to cover vehicle expenses, a healthcare subsidy contribution, occupational accident insurance, and liability insurance.

App companies would be prohibited from engaging in discrimination. Companies would also be required to implement a sexual harassment policy, conduct background checks, implement safety training, and implement a zero tolerance policy prohibiting driving while impaired. Rest periods would also be required.

In exchange, the app companies would receive assurance that the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors so long as four conditions are met:

(a) The network company does not unilaterally prescribe specific dates, times of day, or a minimum number of hours during which the app-based driver must be logged into the network company’s online-enabled application or platform.

(b) The network company does not require the app-based driver to accept any specific rideshare service or delivery service request as a condition of maintaining access to the network company’s online-enabled application or platform.

(c) The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from performing rideshare services or delivery services through other network companies except during engaged time.

(d) The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from working in any other lawful occupation or business.

The proposed law is supported by multiple prominent ride share and delivery app companies. Their hope is to gather enough signatures to place the issue on the November 2020 ballot in California.

This is worth watching. You can read more about it here. If passed, this can serve as model legislation to be applied elsewhere around the country.

In the meantime, if you see fungal spores starting to grow out of app drivers’ heads, you’ll know that Assembly Bill 5 got to them first.  We can only hope.

2018_Web100Badge

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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