Michael Jackson Says: Be Sure Your Subcontractor Agreements Require Adequate Insurance

Insuracne subcointractor agreement independent contractor clauses agreements IMG_1096The Michael Jackson song, “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough” has all kinds of lyrics I can’t understand. No matter how many times I listen to that song, most of it sounds unclear to me, like nonsense syllables.

The one part of the song that is clear, though, is the title. That one phrase is repeated over and over. Leaving aside (for now) the unintelligible parts of the song, the King of Pop unwittingly provided a good lesson on insurance clauses for subcontractor agreements.

(Note to readers: I looked up the real lyrics, and they have nothing to do with subcontractor agreements or insurance clauses, but they might as well since I still can’t understand them.)

Subcontractor agreements typically include an indemnification requirement and an insurance requirement. The subcontractor is required to indemnify your business against certain types of claims and must require sufficient insurance to cover those claims.

But how much insurance is enough?

That varies, of course, depending on the scope of the engagement and the responsibilities undertaken by the subcontractor. But don’t leave the amount and types of coverage to the subcontractor’s discretion.

Types of required insurance often include general commercial liability, automobile, and workers compensation coverage. Minimum amounts, though, should be specified. It does you no good to have a contractual agreement for indemnification if the subcontractor lacks the financial backing to pay up. You may end up with a bankrupt contractor and a worthless indemnification agreement.

I often see $1 million or $2 million per occurrence for general commercial liability. Workers compensation clauses often refer to “statutory limits,” but some states, like Texas, do not have statutory coverage requirements, so the term “statutory limits” in Texas might be meaningless.

Provide some specific requirements for coverage amounts and don’t stop til you get enough.

Now about the song, did you know these are actual lyrics?

  • Keep on with the force, don’t stop.
  • I was wondering, you know, if you could keep on, because the force it’s got a lot of power.
  • I’m melting (I’m melting) like hot candle wax.

Sounds like a tribute to the Star Wars exhibit at Madame Tussaud’s.

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

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

Joint Employment Legislation Needs to Be Expansive — If It’s to Be Effective

IMG_1093On Monday, we wrote about the Save Local Business Act — proposed legislation that, if passed, would create a new definition for joint employment under the NLRA and FLSA. But would that law go far enough?

No. Not at all.

On the bright side for businesses, the law would provide some predictability in that staffing agency workers would most likely be excluded from bargaining units. It would also remedy the current unfairness that results when a staffing agency makes payroll and overtime miscalculations but the company using the workers is held responsible as a joint employer.

But much more needs to be done to provide real clarity and predictability for business owners.

First, the law fails to address who is a joint employer under other federal employment laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Vast uncertainty in these areas would remain.

Second, the law does nothing to address the patchwork of standards under state and local laws. Businesses are subject to those laws too, and it’s fairly common that state and local standards for determining joint employment differ from state-to-state and law-to-law.

Businesses that operate in multiple locations would still be subject to different standards under different laws in different locations. The HR Policy Association has recommended that any legislation intended to clear up the messy patchwork of joint employment standards should include federal preemption or a safe harbor provision — something to ensure that businesses can rely on one set of rules to know whether they are a joint employer or not. That would make much more sense.

The newly proposed legislation has a long way to go. It might never even get to a vote. Let’s hope, however, that the introduction of this bill is just a first step, and that through the amendment process or through a Senate bill, its shortfalls will be addressed.

Business deserve the certainty that would come from a more comprehensive piece of legislation.

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

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

Congress May Rewrite “Joint Employment” Definition

IMG_1092Congress may finally provide some clarity in determining who is a joint employer. In legislation introduced last week, the House proposed a bill that would rewrite the definition of “joint employer” under federal labor law (National Labor Relations Act) and federal wage and hour law (Fair Labor Standards Act).

The Save Local Business Act — despite lacking a fun-to-say acronym — would create a new standard for determining who is a joint employer under these two laws. The proposed new standard would allow a finding of joint employment “only if such person [business] directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a routine and limited manner, exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment….”

The definition provides examples of what are “essential terms and conditions,” including:

  • Hiring employees;
  • Discharging employees;
  • Determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits;
  • Day-to-day supervision of employees;
  • Assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks; and
  • Administering employee discipline.

No longer would a business be deemed a joint employer for exercising indirect or potential control, as permitted by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which is currently on appeal. (Read more about that here.)

The bill would also overrule a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that vastly expanded the scope of joint employment under the FLSA, but only for a handful of Mid-Atlantic states.  Read more on that dreadful decision here.)

As illustrated in this colorful map, the current standard for who is a joint employer varies by which law is being applied and by where you live. The bill, if passed, would provide much-needed clarity in the law — or, at least in some of the laws. The bill would not affect the FMLA, federal anti-discrimination law, or any state or local standards. (In other words, loyal reader, you’ll still need this blog. Ha!)

The bill was introduced by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), but already shares some bipartisan support, with co-sponsors including Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Luis Correa (D-Calif.).

Here’s the current bill.  It’s short, so don’t be afraid to click.

No one knows whether this proposed law will take effect or will even reach a vote (except perhaps Carnac the Magnificent!).  But we can expect significant support from the business community, which may create some momentum toward consiuderation and passage. The National Association of Home Builders has already issued a press release praising the proposed legislation.

If Congress wants to make a positive impact on businesses large and small, this bill could do it. So now let’s all sit back and watch how they screw it up.

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

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

Map Shows Joint Employment Tests Are a Mess!

IMG_8284The tests for determining whether a business is a joint employer vary, depending on which law applies. That means there are different tests under federal labor law, wage and hour law, and employee benefits law, to name a few. There are also different tests under different states’ laws.

Further complicating the analysis, there are even different tests when applying the same law — depending on where you live.

Yes, you read that right. Even though the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal wage and hour law that applies across the country, federal courts in different states use different methods for determining whether a business is a joint employer under that single law.

Same for Title VII. Although this federal anti-discrimination law applies to businesses coast-to-coast, a business can be deemed a joint employer under Title VII on the West Coast and not on the East Coast. Or vice versa. Or yes in Virginia, but no in Pennsylvania. Huh?

We’ve discussed this complication in other posts — such as here and here — but not in graphic form.  Thanks to Richard Heiser, who is in the Legal Department at FedEx Ground, we now have this beauty!

(Heiser testified recently before a Congressional committee on the need for legislation to clear up the confusion.)

The map shows that, depending on where in the U.S. you live, the test for determining whether you are a joint employer varies under the FLSA (color) and under Title VII (pattern).

The map illustrates quite nicely how difficult it is for multi-state employers to determine whether they have responsibilities as a joint employer or not. Editor’s Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale. All U.S. maps are required to say that under federal law. Or not, depending on where you live.

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

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

New NLRB Nominations May Lead to New Joint Employment Test (or to my misuse of Lynyrd Skynyrd song lyrics)

IMG_1088In the Lynyrd Skynyrd song, “Gimme Three Steps,” we find our hero cutting a rug down at a place called The Jug with a girl named Linda Lou. This catchy song has nothing to do with labor law but does deal with someone who finds himself in a bad situation (shakin’ like a leaf on a tree!) and needs three steps to get out the back door.

Same thing here (in a sense). [C’mon, work with me here, I’m trying to make NLRB appointments interesting!]. When not posting tweets of himself pummeling a photoshopped CNN logo outside a WWE ring, President Trump found the time to make two important nominations to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), giving companies two of the three steps needed to undo a long list of anti-business decisions from the past eight years.

The two new appointmnents, once confirmed, will shift the Board back to a 3-2 Republican majority, which should spell relief for businesses in several areas — including joint employment. (Two appointments = two steps. There’s a third step coming.  Wait for it….)

Nominee William Emanuel is a long-time employment defense lawyer who has made a career out of representing companies in labor disputes.

Nominee Marvin Kaplan is currently counsel to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, an independent federal agency that rules on disputes over OSHA citations. He has served nearly a decade in various federal roles, including as Bush 43’s assistant secretary of labor for administration and management at the DOL.

Once confirmed, Emanuel and Kaplan will join current members Philip Miscimarra (R), Mark Gaston Pierce (D), and Lauren McFerran (D).

The rightward shift in the Board will likely bring relief to employers on a number of important labor issues, including the test for joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The Board’s landmark 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris (currently under appeal) redefined the test for joint employment, deeming workers to be joint employees under federal labor law even when a company exercises only minimal and indirect control over their working conditions. The reconstituted Board is likely to revert back to the prior joint employment standard, which required more direct control over how, when, and where work was performed before a company could be deemed a joint employer. (Of course, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals may take care of that itself by reversing the Browning-Ferris decision on appeal. A decision is expected before the end of the year.)

Meanwhile, one significant hurdle remains.  (As promised, loyal reader, here’s the third step.) The term of the NLRB’s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, does not expire until November 2017. As General Counsel, Griffin acts as the NLRB’s Chief Prosecutor. When his term expires, the appointment of a new General Counsel with a more pro-business outlook is expected.

The combination of two appointments to make a more pro-business Board, plus a more pro-business General Counsel, should finally bring relief to employers who have been battered by eight years of anti-business interpretations on issues like union elections, handbook policies, and social media. These rulings have been applied to union and non-union businesses, and so a more pro-business Board will be a welcome change to the business community.

Of course, it will take time for businesses to see the effects of a new Board and, later, a new General Counsel. The right cases and circumstances will need to arise, and then more pro-business interpretations can be issued. I blogged about this topic here a few few months ago, before we knew who the two new NLRB nominees would be. With the President’s two June 2017 nominations, we are two steps closer to these changes taking full effect.  (“That’s the break I was looking for.”)

Thank you, Ronnie Van Zant and Allen Collins, for helping me to try to make this blog post interesting and, most of all, for naming your band after a gym teacher.

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

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

Avoid These FMLA Traps with Joint Employment

nurse - FMLA leave and joint employment-359321_1920The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is already one of the hardest employment laws to comply with. Add joint employment into the mix, and the level of difficulty further increases.

Here are some pointers for handling FMLA issues when joint employment is likely to exist:

Issue 1: Is there Joint Employment?

To determine whether two companies are joint employers under the FMLA, the Economic Realities Test is used. This is the same test used under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (See this post for a recent development that threatens to expand the definition of joint employment under the FLSA.)

The DOL has advised that in most staffing agency relationships, there is joint employment.

Issue 2: How Does Joint Employment Affect An Employee’s FMLA Eligibility?

In this post, we addressed how service time as a temp counts toward the one-year and 1250-hour requirements for an employee’s FMLA eligibility. The same holds true for current staffing agency workers, with a few additional items to remember.

One of the requirements for FMLA eligibility is the existence of 50 employees within a 75-mile radius. So you thought counting was easy? Here are two rules to remember:

  • Staffing agency workers count for both the staffing agency and the company for whom services are being provided.
  • When applying the 75-mile radius rule, the staffing agency worker’s worksite is the location from which work is assigned, unless the worker has been working at a location for more than a year, in which case the physical worksite is used.

Issue 3: Who Is Responsible for What?

The DOL has published this handy dandy Fact Sheet, which describes the FMLA obligations of “primary” and “secondary” employers. In staffing agency relationships, the staffing agency is the primary employer, and the company receiving the services is the secondary employer.

Responsibilities of the primary employer (the staffing agency):

  1. Provide FMLA Notices;
  2. Provide FMLA leave to eligible employees;
  3. Maintain group health insurance benefits during the leave;
  4. Restore the employee to the same job or an equivalent job upon return from leave;
  5. Keep all records required under FMLA for its primary employees.

The primary employer is also prohibited from interfering with a jointly-employed employee’s exercise of or attempt to exercise his or her FMLA rights, or from firing or discriminating against an employee for opposing a practice that is unlawful under the FMLA.

Responsibilities of the secondary employer:

  1. Restore an employee to the same or equivalent job upon return from FMLA leave;
  2. Keep identifying information and payroll records for any jointly-employed employees; and
  3. Comply with all the provisions of the FMLA for its regular, permanent workforce.

A secondary employer is also prohibited from interfering with a jointly-employed employee’s exercise of or attempt to exercise his or her FMLA rights, or from firing or discriminating against an employee for opposing a practice that is unlawful under the FMLA.

Are we having fun yet?

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

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

When an Employee Double-Dips On a Paycheck, Who Pays?

Remember this?

Suppose the chip is a check, and the employee tries to cash it twice? Who would you rather be, Costanza or Timmy?

Staffing agency clients are increasingly pointing to a fraud committed by disloyal short-term employees. They cash a paycheck on their mobile app, then deposit the paper check a second time for duplicate payment. The check clears twice. Who must pay?

While this problem can arise in many scenarios, including with regular W-2 employees, it seems to be occurring more frequently with staffing agency employees, PEOs, temps, and other short-term workers. So let’s take a look.

I found a few good blog posts covering this subject (for those wanting more detail, try here or here), but here’s the bottom line:

The Check 21 Act, passed in 2004, addresses what happens when a bank allows its customers access to a mobile deposit app. When a customer electronically deposits a check, the bank creates an electronic image of that check, called a “substitute check.” This is what you sometimes see when you view your statement online. It’s negotiable, like a live check.

The original live check, however, still exists too. A fraudster who acts quickly enough can sometimes cash both. Under the Check 21 Act, the bank that creates the “substitute check” — the bank that allowed its customer access to the mobile check cashing app — is the bank that bears responsibility for any loss from the twice-cashed check.

This makes sense. Because that bank’s customer is the fraudster who double dipped, that bank is also in the best position to recoup the funds from the double-dipper.

Staffing agencies, payroll agencies, or PEOs who issue a twice-cashed check are sometimes asked to make good on the same payment twice. They shouldn’t be. If the double dipping occurred through an electronic “substitute check,”, they can point to the Check 21 Act, specifically 12 USC §5004, and argue that the double-dipper’s bank is properly accountable.

Note:  The Check 21 Act only applies to electronic double dipping. If an employee claims to have lost an original live check and obtains a substitute, then cashes both checks, different rules apply.

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

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