Category Archives: Non-Employee Workers

12.02.24
by

Sampling Bias? California’s New Freelancer Law Only Applies to “Professional Services”

This clever illustration of sampling bias is from @sketchplanator. Marketers, under California law, provide “professional services.” So do photographers, fine artists, travel agents, barbers, foresters, human resource administrators, and a grab bag of other miscellaneous service workers. But not construction workers, lawyers, electricians, nannies, or dog walkers.

Why does this matter?

Well, California’s new Freelancer Worker Protection Act (FWPA) (explained here) only applies to “professional services.” The term “professional services” is defined as having the same meaning as in AB5, the law that sets up the ABC Test and then adds a medley of exceptions. “Professional services” is one of the exceptions.

So what does that mean for companies retaining freelancers in California?

If they provide “professional services” (as defined in Labor Code 2778), then:

  • There’s an exception to the ABC Test, meaning that to determine whether they are truly independent contractors, you use the S.G. Borello test. That’s a multi-part balancing test.
  • If they pass the IC test, the FWPA potentially applies.
  • If they pass the IC test and provide at least $250 in services in any 120-day period, then the FWPA does apply. A written contract is required, along with several other requirements, explained here.

If you want the full list of “professional services,” scroll down. I’ve copied it here. Otherwise, you’ve successfully completed this post, and you will earn a gold star on your chart on my refrigerator. (Do parents still do that? Please let me know.)

Professional Services under Labor Code 2778:

(2) “Professional services” means services that meet any of the following:

(A) Marketing, provided that the contracted work is original and creative in character and the result of which depends primarily on the invention, imagination, or talent of the individual or work that is an essential part of or necessarily incident to any of the contracted work.

(B) Administrator of human resources, provided that the contracted work is predominantly intellectual and varied in character and is of such character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time.

(C) Travel agent services provided by either of the following:

(i) A person regulated by the Attorney General under Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 17550) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.

(ii) An individual who is a seller of travel within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 17550.1 of the Business and Professions Code and who is exempt from the registration under subdivision (g) of Section 17550.20 of the Business and Professions Code.

(D) Graphic design.

(E) Grant writer.

(F) (i) Fine artist.

(ii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, “fine artist” means an individual who creates works of art to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content, including drawings, paintings, sculptures, mosaics, works of calligraphy, works of graphic art, crafts, or mixed media.

(G) Services provided by an enrolled agent who is licensed by the United States Department of the Treasury to practice before the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Part 10 of Subtitle A of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(H) Payment processing agent through an independent sales organization.

(I) Services provided by any of the following:

(i) By a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor who works under a written contract that specifies the rate of pay and obligation to pay by a defined time, as long as the individual providing the services is not directly replacing an employee who performed the same work at the same volume for the hiring entity; the individual does not primarily perform the work at the hiring entity’s business location, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a); and the individual is not restricted from working for more than one hiring entity. This subclause is not applicable to a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor who works on motion pictures, which is inclusive of, but is not limited to, theatrical or commercial productions, broadcast news, television, and music videos. Nothing in this section restricts a still photographer, photojournalist, photo editor, or videographer from distributing, licensing, or selling their work product to another business, except as prohibited under copyright laws or workplace collective bargaining agreements.

(ii) To a digital content aggregator by a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor.

(iii) For the purposes of this subparagraph the following definitions apply:

(I) “Photo editor” means an individual who performs services ancillary to the creation of digital content, such as retouching, editing, and keywording.

(II) “Digital content aggregator” means a licensing intermediary that obtains a license or assignment of copyright from a still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor for the purposes of distributing that copyright by way of sublicense or assignment, to the intermediary’s third-party end users.

(J) Services provided by a freelance writer, translator, editor, copy editor, illustrator, or newspaper cartoonist who works under a written contract that specifies the rate of pay, intellectual property rights, and obligation to pay by a defined time, as long as the individual providing the services is not directly replacing an employee who performed the same work at the same volume for the hiring entity; the individual does not primarily perform the work at the hiring entity’s business location, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a); and the individual is not restricted from working for more than one hiring entity.

(K) Services provided by an individual as a content contributor, advisor, producer, narrator, or cartographer for a journal, book, periodical, evaluation, other publication or educational, academic, or instructional work in any format or media, who works under a written contract that specifies the rate of pay, intellectual property rights and obligation to pay by a defined time, as long as the individual providing the services is not directly replacing an employee who performed the same work at the same volume for the hiring entity, the individual does not primarily perform the work at the hiring entity’s business location notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a); and the individual is not restricted from working for more than one hiring entity.

(L) Services provided by a licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber, or licensed cosmetologist provided that the individual:

(i) Sets their own rates, processes their own payments, and is paid directly by clients.

(ii) Sets their own hours of work and has sole discretion to decide the number of clients and which clients for whom they will provide services.

(iii) Has their own book of business and schedules their own appointments.

(iv) Maintains their own business license for the services offered to clients.

(v) If the individual is performing services at the location of the hiring entity, then the individual issues a Form 1099 to the salon or business owner from which they rent their business space.

(vi) This subparagraph shall become inoperative, with respect to licensed manicurists, on January 1, 2025.

(M) A specialized performer hired by a performing arts company or organization to teach a master class for no more than one week. “Master class” means a specialized course for limited duration that is not regularly offered by the hiring entity and is taught by an expert in a recognized field of artistic endeavor who does not work for the hiring entity to teach on a regular basis.

(N) Services provided by an appraiser, as defined in Part 3 (commencing with Section 11300) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code.

(O) Registered professional foresters licensed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 750) of Chapter 2.5 of Division 1 of the Public Resources Code.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.18.24
by

Bad Moon Rising: Another State Cracks Down on Misclassification with $2.7M Due

I see the bad moon a-rising
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightning
I see bad times today

When John Fogerty wrote “Bad Moon Rising,” he was reportedly inspired by the 1941 film The Devil and Daniel Webster. There’s a scene in the film where a hurricane destroys the crops of several farms, but spares those of a man who had made a deal with the devil in exchange for wealth. 

When classifying independent contractors, a deal with the devil generally doesn’t work. If you misclassify your workers as contractors, when the law says they should be employees, trouble will eventually be on the way.

A printed media delivery company found that out the hard way, after being investigated by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD).

There was no civil lawsuit here. A state agency went after the company. Be wary of state agency audits. This one cost the company $2.7 million in a recent settlement.

  • Overview: The New Jersey Attorney General and the DLWD reached a $2.7 million settlement with Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc. (PCF) for misclassifying delivery workers as independent contractors.
  • Findings: The investigation revealed that PCF exerted significant control over its delivery workers, who were largely immigrants working overnight for low wages. PCF failed to classify these workers as employees, violating New Jersey labor laws.
  • Settlement Details: The settlement totals $2.7 million, covering approximately 2,400 workers.
  • History of the Investigation: The investigation began in 2021, focusing on PCF’s compliance with state employment laws from 2019 to 2022. It was found that PCF made unlawful deductions from workers’ pay and failed to provide essential protections. In a separate 2022 settlement, PCF was required to pay nearly $2.7 million for failing to contribute to the state’s Unemployment Compensation and Disability Benefits Funds between 2015 and 2018.

When considering independent contractor relationships, companies often make the mistake of assuming that if both parties are satisfied with the arrangement, it will be ok. Not so.

State agencies are becoming more and more aggressive in enforcing misclassification on their own. States lose money from misclassification because employers contribute funds to state unemployment and workers’ compensation funds for employees, but not for contractors.

So make sure your workers are properly classified, and heed this warning from John Fogerty and the band:

Hope you got your things together
Hope you are quite prepared to die
Looks like we’re in for nasty weather
One eye is taken for an eye.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.11.24
by

For Upcoming Changes to Independent Contractor Rules, Look to Band Names

The band America (“A Horse with No Name,” “Ventura Highway”) was formed in England. Yes, really. But by three Americans whose fathers were in the U.S. Air Force and stationed overseas.

That got me thinking about other bands with place names. When I was growing up in Miami in the 1980s, if someone mentioned Boston, I thought of just another band out of Boston, on the road to make ends meet. If someone mentioned Kansas, I thought of dust in the wind, even though I never particularly liked that song. Chicago made me think of the Cubs, but only in 1984. Otherwise, does anybody really know what time it is?

Not that I am older and have a life, place names mean something different to me. They now make me think of federal, state, and local laws affecting independent contractor status.

(Ok, I take back the comment about having a life. I realize this is a sad and pathetic way to think of place names.)

After the election, place names are going to take on greater importance as businesses aim to protect their independent contractor relationships. Federal enforcement activity isn’t going away, but I expect to see a growing emphasis on legislation and enforcement at the state and local level.

In the realm of non-employee workers (independent contractors, staffing agency temps), I expect to more state and local legislation in these areas:

1) Freelancer Laws. We now have freelancer laws in CA, NY, IL, Los Angeles, NYC, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Columbus. These laws impose requirements when retaining individuals who are independent contractors. The laws generally require written contracts that contain several mandatory components.

2) Temporary Worker Laws. We have these in NJ and IL. They generally require that staffing agencies pay their workers an equivalent wage rate (and sometimes the value of benefits) being paid to workers they work alongside at the company where they are providing services.

3) Misclassification Laws – the Bad Kind. In states with Democrat trifectas (house, senate, governor), expect new laws that make it harder to be an independent contractor. Expect more ABC Tests, like in CA and MA. Other states have ABC Tests for determining who is an employee under workers’ comp and unemployment law.

4) Misclassification Laws – the Good Kind. In states with Republican trifectas, expect more safe harbor laws. If you satisfy a set of basic requirements in your dealings with a non-employee worker, then the worker is an independent contractor under that state’s laws. Pesky balancing tests (and long-haired freaky people) need not apply. We have these state laws in WV and LA (not L.A.)

We will likely see changes at the federal level too, but these may take years to develop. The federal agency rulemaking process is slow and cumbersome, and agency rules will take on less importance as federal agency power continues to diminish after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision.

I haven’t touched on Europe or Asia, but those are bands for another day and another post. When? At some point, in the heat of the moment, but only time will tell.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.21.24
by

What Does It Mean? Supreme Court Weighs in on California’s Independent Contractor Law (Sort of)

I am entertained by poorly translated things. I have no idea what this shirt means or what the designer thought it would mean. I saw this one in Italy.

I can’t help but wonder what the reaction would be if I wore this shirt in the U.S. Would people say anything to me? I was tempted to ask the wearer about it or to try to buy it from her, but I chickened out.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court kind of chickened out too.

A petition had been filed with the Court, asking it to invalidate California’s AB5, its stringent independent contractor law. The petition argued that the law singles out certain businesses and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As you may recall, AB5 is the California law that makes it much harder to maintain independent contractor status. The law presumes that most workers are employees and requires a hiring party to satisfy a three-part ABC Test to classify someone as a contractor.

The law, however, does not apply the same standards to everyone. The law exempts loads of industries and types of workers from the ABC Test, and — if we’re being honest here — the law was really targeted toward rideshare and delivery companies.

And that’s exactly what the rideshare and delivery companies argued.

In June 2024, the Ninth Circuit voted to preserve the law, and the case (called Olson v. State of California) was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, can decide which cases to hear and does not have to give a reason for declining to hear a case.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined the petition, opting not to hear the case. The Court provided no reason.

A year earlier, in July 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a different petition asking it to review AB5. The earlier petition, in Mobilize the Message LLC v Bonta, argued that the law’s restrictions on freelance work violated the first Amendment.

For some companies, the Supreme Court’s decision last week not to hear the Olson case will have limited effect. The passage of Prop 22 in late 2020 exempted certain rideshare and delivery app companies from having to comply with AB5. (Prop 22 was also challenged in court and survived.) But AB5 and its ABC Test, later recodified in AB2257, remain in effect for many industries and businesses.

This most recent petition to the Supreme Court alleged that AB5 violated the Equal Protection Clause by unfairly singling out certain industries. I think the evidence is plain that this is what motivated the law, but whether that motivation rises to the level of an Equal Protection violation is another matter.

But no matter. The Supreme Court can decline to hear the appeal, and that’s exactly what it did.

AB5 remains on the books, and I can now start thinking about how I could turn all of this into a poorly translated t-shirt.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.14.24
by

Blending In: California Passes Freelancer Protection Law, Joining Other Locales

Don’t tell anyone, but there is a motorcycle toward the front of this photo. I know, it blends right in and is hard to see because it’s camouflaged. But look carefully and you’ll see it.

I saw it recently while in Bellagio on our vacation to Italy. Yes, I have better photos, but this one helps me make a point about blending in.

The California legislature has decided to blend in too, adopting a freelancer protection bill that is similar to laws already in place in New York State, Illinois, and several cities.

California’s Freelance Worker Protection Act takes effect 1/1/2025.

The law has no bearing on the determination of whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. But if the worker is a contractor and other criteria are met, then the requirements of the law must be followed by the party retaining the independent contractor.

If you’ll be retaining a freelancer in California, here’s what you need to know. As a reward for reading to the end, I’ve included some tips and a better photo.

Applies if:

  • Retention of individual IC or single member entity,
  • Retained to provide “professional services” (as defined in Labor Code sec 2778), and
  • $250 in services to be provided within 120 days

But not applicable if:

  • The hiring party is an individual and the work is for the hiring party’s personal benefit or benefit of the family (e.g., n/a to babysitter, dog walker)

Requirements:

  • Written contact that includes:
    • Name and address of each party
    • Itemized list of services and value
    • Rate and method of compensation
    • Date when payment is due or mechanism for determining when payment is due
    • Date when IC must submit invoice to allow for timely payment
  • Payment to IC is due on the date specified in contract or, if no date is specified, then 30 days after work is completed
  • Once work is completed, hiring party cannot require freelancer (a) to accept less in payment, (b) to provide more goods or services, or (c) to grant more IP rights than agreed to in the contract

Other provisions:

  • The law does not limit existing contract law or prevent an IC from enforcing a verbal contract or recovering under promissory estoppel
  • Waivers are void
  • Retaliation prohibited
  • Civil action permitted; recovery to include attorneys fees and costs
  • Damages:
    • If IC requested and was denied a written contract, then additional $1000
    • If hiring party failed to timely pay, then 2x unpaid portion
    • Damages equal to value of contract for other violations
  • Hiring party must provide IC with a copy of the contract
  • Hiring party must retain contract for 4 years

Tips:

  • Clarify intellectual property rights in contract; don’t leave that until later or assume there is a handshake understanding of who will own the IP
  • Specify a due date for payment or a process for determining when payment is due
  • Define when the work is completed, and define it in a way that requires specifications to be met. This is to protect against poor workmanship and to try to preserve the right to pay less for a shoddy output.

And here’s a more representative photo from the Italy vacation. This is at Alpe di Suise in the Dolomites.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.07.24
by

Don’t Look Surprised: House Committee Presses DOL for Detail on Misclassification Investigations

My impression of European electrical outlets is that they seem surprised, as if they don’t know what might be coming. I saw this one in our Airbnb in Lake Como.

Am I wrong? Didn’t think so.

The outlet should not be surprised at what’s coming. And DOL Acting Director Julie Su should not have been surprised either when she was issued a subpoena by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has been at odds with the DOL for some time. In particular, Foxx et al. have doubts about the legitimacy of the Su-led DOL’s belief that independent contractor misclassification is rampant. The Committee believes that the DOL is being too aggressive in seeking to find misclassification in relationships that are, in reality, properly classified as independent contractor relationships.

In March, the Committee sent the DOL a series of inquiries about its enforcement efforts. But the DOL largely evaded the questions. After ongoing back and forth, the Committee has finally issued a subpoena to the DOL, demanding production of specific information about the DOL’s enforcement activities.

More specifically, the subpoena requests documents sufficient to show, since January 20, 2021:

  1. The number of instances of misclassification that Wage and Hour Division (WHD) inspectors have found.
  2. The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has initiated.
  3. The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has jointly undertaken with the NLRB.
  4. The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has jointly undertaken with the FTC.

Responses to the subpoena are due October 7th. I don’t expect we’ll see direct answers.

And when that happens, it will be no surprise.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.16.24
by

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

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

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

1. Review & Modify Actual Practices

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

2.Create a Vendor Qualification Questionnaire

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

3.Create a Gatekeeper Process

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

4.Draft Customized Contracts

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

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

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

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.26.24
by

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

Nature can be cruel. Friends can be crueler.

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

(No, it was not Dick Cheney.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.12.24
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.15.24
by

Whelmed: Federal Appeals Court Says Student-Athletes Might Be Employees under FLSA

Today I am feeling whelmed.

That’s because I just read the 65-page opinion in Johnson v. NCAA. The issue before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was whether college athletes could plausibly be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

A massive class action had been brought, and the NCAA and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The district court denied it, allowing the case to move forward. The NCAA was allowed an immediate appeal, but the Third Circuit has affirmed and allowed the case to proceed.

Here’s why I am whelmed.

I am underwhelmed by the Third Circuit’s legal analysis, which has more faults than a novice tennis player learning to serve. I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from an eventual finding that college athletes are, in fact, employees.

Overwhelmed plus underwhelmed must equal whelmed, right?

The word overwhelmed comes from the Middle English whelmen, which meant “to overturn.” For speakers of Modern English, that’s nothing more than a fun fact, though, because we’d have a really hard time understanding anyone speaking Middle English anyway. Maybe you had to read The Canterbury Tales in school? Cliffnotes, please.

I am underwhelmed by the legal analysis for many reasons.

1. The Third Circuit acknowledges but then disregards the Supreme Court’s instruction in Walling v Portland Terminal that “[a]n individual who ‘without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose of pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit,’ is outside the sweep of the Act [FLSA].”

2. The Third Circuit acknowledges but the disregards the Department of Labor’s longstanding position and guidance in its Field Operations Handbook, sec. 10b03(e), which says that the activity of college students participating in interscholastic athletics primarily for their own benefit as part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school is not ‘work.’”

3. The Third Circuit ignores the long-recognized concept that play is not work. The dictionary definition relied upon by the Supreme Court in the Walling case differentiated “work” from “something undertaken primarily for pleasure, sport, or immediate gratification….”

4. The Third Circuit butchers the well-established Economic Realities Test, which is the standard for determining employee status under the FLSA. The Third Circuit instead advocates for applying the common law test of agency, which, according to the Supreme Court, is not the test.

5. The Third Circuit pays little attention to the fact that students who elect to play sports do so with no expectation of payment, making them volunteers. Volunteers are not subject to the FLSA (whether at U. Tenn. or otherwise).

6. The Third Circuit makes up a new four-part test (out of thin air) for determining when “college athletes may be employees”:

We therefore hold that college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) “necessarily and primarily for the [other party’s] benefit,” Tenn. Coal, 321 U.S. at 598, (c) under that party’s control or right of control, id., and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits,”

I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from a ruling that 500,000 collegiate athletes across 1,100 schools are employees of their schools.

If these schools had to pay minimum wage and overtime to all college athletes, that would bust their athletic budgets. Sports that do not pay for themselves (essentially all except major football and some basketball programs) would have to be cut.

Remember when Title IX caused schools to cut unprofitable men’s sports like diving and swimming so they could equalize their offerings of men’s and women’s sports? If only football and men’s basketball are profitable, then schools will need to maintain equivalent women’s sports to comply with the mandates of Title IX. That means some women’s sports will survive, at a loss to offset the opportunities given to men in football and basketball, and the other men’s sports will be cut. If we have to pay, then you can’t play.

International students on F-1 visas would have to be cut from their teams, since their visas generally do not allow them to engage in compensable employment. (That’s why international students can’t take NIL money.) Or federal immigration law will need to be changed.

Unless other laws are changed, schools might be required to provide these employees with healthcare benefits, family or medical leave (paid in some states), reimbursement of expenses in some states, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and a range of other benefits.

If the courts mess this up, which seems very possible, Congress will need to step in and enact a comprehensive set of rules applicable to college athletes.

For now, the immediate impact of this decision is limited. The Third Circuit did not rule that college athletes are employees under the FLSA. They ruled only that it is plausible that circumstances may exist under which college athletes could be employees under the FLSA. Procedurally, all that happened here is that a motion to dismiss was denied.

Next, the parties will fight over class certification, which could cause the case to fall apart, given the massively divergent situations of, say, a D-1 football player at Alabama and a D-3 bowler at Whatsamatta U.

The issue of whether college athletes are employees under federal wage and hour laws, federal labor laws (NLRA), and a myriad of other laws (state and federal) is not going away soon.

My fear, though, is that courts are (1) likely to apply the wrong legal analysis (as the Third Circuit did here, appearing completely lost), (2) likely to misapply laws that were never intended for this situation, and (3) likely to cause a cascade of unintended consequences that will lead to the end of college sports — unless Congress steps in. (Insert joke here.)

Now are you feeling whelmed?

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

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

2018_Web100Badge