Category Archives: Tests

11.06.23
by

This Will Not Do! Health and Safety Rules May Create Joint Employment under New NLRB Rule

Ginsberg’s Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:

  1. There is a game.
  2. You can’t win.
  3. You can’t break even.
  4. You can’t even get out of the game.

That’s the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRB’s new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).

Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule — the NLRB’s decision to include “Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees” as an “essential term and condition of employment” for purposes of determining joint employer status.

Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.

Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.

Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
  2. Employees of vendors work onsite.
  3. Employees of vendors must comply.

Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over “working conditions related to the safety and health” of a vendor’s employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.

More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our site safety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.

The NLRB’s position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say you’re a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

Good morning, Worm your honor
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This will not do
Call the schoolmaster

What to do?

Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.

It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 — less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment — the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.

So what are businesses to do?

The answer can’t be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not — or should not — convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.

One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you don’t go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesn’t.

Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendor’s employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But it’s worth looking at your policy language.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Let’s also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.29.23
by

Feeling At Risk? You Might Be, Now That NLRB Issued New Joint Employer Rule

I took this picture on Friday of a window washer at the Hilton across the street.

Late last week, the NLRB issued its new joint employer rule. I’ve listed three takeways below. Don’t be left hanging. Click here for the full Alert.

1) The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule that changes the test for determining who is a joint employer.

2) The Final Rule rescinds the Rule enacted in 2020 and adopts a test that will vastly expand the circumstances under which a company is a joint employer of the employees of another company.

3) The new rule may cause absurd results, including creating joint employment from the application of worksite safety rules to everyone onsite, including a vendor’s employees. The new rule requires joint employers to participate in the collective bargaining process.

The full Alert explains in more detail. If you are not subscribed to BakerHostetler employment law alerts, let me know and I’ll add you to the distribution list.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.05.23
by

Going to Rehab? Patients Can Still Be Employees, Says Court

Driving back from Ann Arbor after dropping off my youngest daughter at college, I decided it would be a good time to catch up on some albums I hadn’t heard in a while. Soon I settled on Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black, which was her second and final album, released in 2006. The article liked here describes the conversation with her father that led to the song.

If Amy had gone to rehab, it’s fair to assume she would not have expected to be considered an employee of the rehab center where she was being treated. That was probably the expectation of a number of rehab patients at a Texas facility too, but a court ruling last month found otherwise.

It’s true, the situation in this case was a bit unusual, but it still involves rehab patients being deemed employees of their rehab enter. Here’s how it went down.

The patients, as part of their treatment, were required to undergo vocational, on-the-job training at third parties, where they worked regular shifts. The third parties would pay the rehab center, and the fees were used to offset operating costs. The patients signed agreements that they did not expect compensation for their work.

The rehab center, though, essentially functioned as a staffing agency. It charged the third parties for the patients’ time, even charging time-and-a-half when they worked overtime hours. The patients saw none of that cash, and some of them sued.

A district court in Texas applied the economic realities test and found the patients to be acting as employees of the rehab center / staffing agency when it performed the offsite work. After discovery, the court certified a collective action under the FLSA, and the case is ongoing.

An interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed, with the appeals court holding that the district court applied the right test for determining whether the patients could have been employees.

This case, while still underway, is a good reminder that employment relationships can be created in unexpected ways. This time it was the rehab center that tried to say, no no no.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.03.23
by

Still a Chunky Stew: California’s ABC Test Survives Supreme Court Challenge

The song “Rock & Roll Stew” was released by Traffic as a single, off its excellent 1971 album, The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys. The stew is a reference to the messy life of playing gigs in clubs around the world. (This stew, of course, refers to the meal, not the anthropomorphic similar-sounding Stu, as referenced in Led Zeppelin’s “Boogie with Stu,” with this Stu being a real person, namely Ian Stewart, who was the Rolling Stones’ road manager and piano player and who sat at the keyboard one day to help Jimmy Page tune his guitar, a collaboration that resulted in this mostly improvised song, which is catchy and fun.)

Stew, according to allrecipes.com, is like a soup but chunkier. When making a stew, you can toss in meats and vegetables and whatever else you’re trying to get rid of in your refrigerator to make room before you go to Costco.

A messy chunky stew also seems like a good description of California’s ABC Test, which seems straightforward enough at first but, in reality, is chock full of meaty exceptions, most of which seem completely arbitrary.

The exceptions to the ABC Test are laid out in California Labor Code sections 2776 through 2785. The structure of the California law goes basically like this: When determining if someone is an employee or an independent contractor, use the ABC Test except in a whole bunch of situations or professions or circumstances, in which you would not use the ABC Test. There are dozens and dozens of exceptions to the ABC Test, and you just about need a decision tree to figure them out. The lines that have been drawn to determine whether some of the exceptions apply can also be maddening to understand, and they too seem arbitrary.

In a case brought by Mobilize the Message LLC, some of these lines were challenged on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment.

More specifically, the argument was that the law creates two classes of canvassers and distributors of literature, with different outcomes depending on whether they are engaging in political speech. The law allows promoters of consumer goods and distributors of newspapers to be classified as independent contractors, but it subjects promoters of political campaigns to the ABC Test, making it much more likely that they would be deemed employees.

Mobilize the Message LLC argued that the law discriminated against political speech by imposing more substantial burdens on those who engage in it than those who do not.

In October 2022, the Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, ruling that there was no First Amendment violation. The petitioner then sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But late last month, the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

That means the Ninth Circuit ruling will stand, and the ABC Test — with its arbitrary lines — lives another day, even if the law subjects workers engaging in political speech to a different set of rules.

The ABC Test remains a messy stew, chock full of meaty (and vegetable-y) exceptions. But businesses operating in California have no choice but to learn it and digest it, no matter how chunky and confusing the mystery meat may be.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.26.23
by

What if Everything You Knew…? DOL Targets Fall 2023 for New Independent Contractor Test

In school we all learned that the longest river is the Nile. But some say the Amazon is longer. In the atlas “Maps of Useful Knowledge” (1846), the Amazon was listed as 3200 miles and the Nile 2750 miles. The current U.S. Geological Survey shows the Nile at 4132 miles and the Amazon at 4000 miles. Brazilian researchers claim the Amazon is 4331 miles long and the Nile a mere 4258 miles.

So which is it, and how can it be changing? Apparently the controversy involves disputes over where the rivers start, where they end, and how to track changes in the rivers’ course.

Whatever you learned about the test for who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is subject to change too.

Remember October 2022? Elon Musk completed a $44B deal to take over twitter. Germany took steps to legalize marijuana. And the DOL released a proposed new regulation to modify the independent contractor test.

The proposed rule received more than 50,000 comments. We’ve been speculating about when the DOL might issue a final rule.

We’ve now learned that the DOL is targeting this fall for release of the new rule. The latest version of the regulatory agenda lists August as the target release date. August may be a bit ambitious, but the fall seems likely. On June 9, a federal court of appeals granted a motion by the DOL for a 120-day stay in a pending lawsuit. The DOL asked for the stay to allow it time to release the new rule.

You can read more about the proposed rule here.

So it seems that whatever we know now about the length of the Nile River, the length of the Amazon River, and the independent comntractor test under the FLSA is subject to change. Hopefully we’ll know more about all three by sometime this fall.

We can be pretty sure the final rule will closely resemble the multi-factor balancing test released in October 2022. Businesses can plan accordingly by being proactive in assessing their relationships with independent contractors and taking steps to reduce risk now.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.19.23
by

No Need to Panic: NLRB’s Atlanta Opera Decision Unlikely to Have a Major Impact on Misclassification Disputes

Photo by Kilyan Sockalingum on Unsplash

As I wrote a few days ago in the BakerHostetler blog, The Bargaining Table…

The sky is not falling.

When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued its Atlanta Opera decision on June 14, I read the decision. Then I read some of the commentary issued quickly by news outlets right after the decision dropped. I’m not sure whether all of those commentators read the actual decision. To those who think this decision will have any significant impact on independent contractor classification under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), I disagree.

In Atlanta Opera, the Board purported to revise the test for determining employee status under the Act. The Board said it was overruling the 2019 SuperShuttle DFW case and readopting the FedEx II standard from 2014. But is there really any practical difference? I think not.

Click here to read the full story.

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.01.23
by

What is the Joint Employment Test under the FLSA? (And Why Are There So Many?)

In the Muppet Movie, Kermit famously wondered, “Why are there so many songs about rainbows?”

Articles in Psychology Today and Remind Magazine have attempted to answer this question. A blog post on the Tough Pigs website almost took a contrary view in a post titled “Why There AREN’T So Many Songs About Rainbows,” but that was a twitter gimmick asking for wrong answers only.

Turns out there are quite a few songs about rainbows. You can google it. There’s also a pretty good band called Rainbow (“Man on the Silver Mountain,” “Since You Been Gone”), and the University of Hawaii’s teams are the Rainbow Warriors, f/k/a just the Rainbows, which probably didn’t frighten much of their football competition in the Mountain West.

I’m inspired by Kermit’s lyrical question, but my thoughts stray in a different direction: Why are there so many … joint employment tests, just under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? Shouldn’t courts applying a federal law use the same test in every jurisdiction? Of course they should, but they don’t.

Here are the current tests for joint employment under the FLSA, in a nutshell:

The First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits apply a four-factor test based on a 1983 case called Bonette. The test considers whether the putative joint employer (1) can hire and fire employees, (2) controls employees’ work and employment conditions, (3) determines rates of pay, and (4) maintains employment records. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Second Circuit rejects the Bonette test as too focused on agency, instead applying a non-exclusive six-factor test. Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co, Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 71-76 (2d Cir. 2003).

The Eleventh Circuit applies an eight-factor test that includes the Bonette factors and adds factors related to economic dependence. Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (11th Cir. 2012).

The Fourth Circuit is having none of what the other circuits are having and goes in an entirely different direction. The Fourth Circuit’s test compares the two putative employers to determine whether they are “completely dissociated.” Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2017); Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757 (4th Cir. 2017). The Fourth Circuit’s test is so far off the mark that it relies on a (mis)interpretation of a federal regulation that no longer exists.

And speaking of federal regulations that no longer exist, the Department of Labor’s regulation defining joint employment under the FLSA? You guessed it. It no longer exists.

In 2021, the DOL rescinded the joint employer regulation that had been adopted by the Trump DOL in 2020. The 2020 regulation has rescinded the previous regulation, which had been around for decades. No new regulation has been adopted, and so there is no regulation. Part 791 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, formerly home to the DOL’s joint employment regulation, is empty.

So, why are there so many tests for joint employment? No good reason. There just are.

But that could change. Following a recent Ninth Circuit decision tagging Los Angeles County as a joint employer, L.A. County has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the joint employment test. So we’ll see what happens there. A conservative Supreme Court majority might recognize how absurd it is that one federal statute can be interpreted so many different ways. Maybe they’ll take the case and announce one test for everyone.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for the joint employer test under the FLSA, you’ll need to look in several places. The test depends on where you are. All of us under its spell. We probably know that it’s ma-gic!

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
03.20.23
by

Could California’s AB 5 Get Cut Off? Ninth Circuit Ruling Keeps Case Alive

When I hear the name Lorena, my mind automatically goes back to 1993, which is probably true for many men about my age. That’s the year when Lorena Bobbitt brought a kitchen knife into the bedroom and cut off her husband John’s member while he was sleeping. She then tossed it in a field near the house, alerted police where to find it, and became an overnight celebrity for having taken revenge after years of alleged domestic abuse.

John later tried to cash in on the detachment, forming a band called The Severed Parts and appearing in two pornos called John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut and Frankenpenis.

It was a different Lorena who grabbed headlines last week, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether it’s unconstitutional to pass a law because of personal animus.

The law is California’s AB 5, and the Lorena is former California assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. As a quick refresher, AB 5 is the California law that imposed a hard-to-satisfy ABC Test for determining independent contractor status. Lorena Gonzalez, a driving force behind the bill, was vocal in her animus toward rideshare and delivery app companies.

In Olson v. California, the rideshare and delivery app companies sued to invalidate AB 5, arguing that the law contained dozens of exceptions targeted toward a grab bag of industries, and their exclusion from the list of exemptions was due to animus toward them, rather than reason.

This might have been a hard argument to make, but for Lorena. Congresswoman Gonzalez made frequent public statements against rideshare and delivery companies, claiming they mistreated workers by not classifying them as employees. Gonzalez said she was open to including exceptions in the bill, but not for these companies. The legislature then passed an exemption for other referral-based app businesses, but not rideshare or delivery, even though the business models are basically the same. A few other vocal lawmakers joined Gonzalez with similar public statements targeting the rideshare and delivery app companies. It’s the old familiar “[insert name] said the quiet part aloud” story.

Last week the Ninth Circuit ruled that personal animus is not a legit reason to pass a law. The Court wrote, “We are persuaded that these allegations plausibly state a claim that the ‘singling out’ of Plaintiffs effectuated by A.B. 5, as amended, fails to meet the relatively easy standard of rational basis review.” The Court was referring to the standard used for evaluating equal protection claims under the Constitution. It does not advance a governmental interest to pass a law out of a desire to harm a politically unpopular group of citizens.

The Court’s ruling did not overturn AB 5. The ruling sent the case back to the district court, which will have to reopen the case against AB 5.

For now the law remains in effect, and there is no immediate impact to businesses in California. But the fight to overturn AB 5 has fresh legs and some momentum.

In other words, businesses in California are still subject to the ABC Test — unless you’re a licensed insurance business or individual, physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, veterinarian, lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, accountant, registered securities broker-dealer or investment adviser, direct sales salesperson, commercial fisherman working on American vessels for a limited period, marketer, human resources administrator, travel agent, graphic designer, grant writer, fine artist, payment processing agent, still photographer or photo journalist, freelance writer, editor, or cartoonist, licensed esthetician, electrogist, manicurist, barber, cosmetologist, real estate licensee, repossession agent, recording artist, songwriter, lyricist, composer, proofer, manager of recording artists, record producer or director, musical engineer or mixer, vocalist, musician engaged in the creation of sound recording, photographer working on recording photo shoots or album covers, independent radio promoter, newspaper distributor working under contract with a newspaper publisher, newspaper carrier working under contract either with a newspaper publisher or newspaper distributor, contracting party in certain types of business-to-business relationships, or referral agency other than for rideshare or delivery — all of which are subject to possible exemptions.

And so you can see the point. The exemptions are a mishmosh created by special interests and lobbying efforts, with no coherent overall theme — except to make sure rideshare and delivery apps are subject to the ABC Test.

We’ll continue to follow this case. Meanwhile, if you’d like to read more about the original Lorena and the incident, there’s a Lifetime movie, an Amazon docuseries, and a whole bunch of articles.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
01.09.23
by

When They Get Around To It: Update on the DOL’s Independent Contractor Rulemaking

In Denbighshire, Wales, the Howatson family lives in a small house that sits… wait for it… in the middle of a roundabout.

In the early 1980s, after the family had been in the house for 20 years, local authorities told them their property sat smack in the middle of where a roundabout was to be built. The family refused to sell, and they now have lovely 360-degree views of people driving around their house all day and night.

The Department of Labor is taking is a more direct approach in its effort to update the worker classification test under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But it’s a slow process, and it will be several more months before we see a final rule.

But this post will provide a status update. Long story short, we’ll see a new rule when the DOL gets around to it.

In October 2022, the DOL released its proposed new test for determining who is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The proposed rule generated more than 50,000 comments in response. I posted some initial reactions to the proposed rule in this article here.

The proposed rule identifies seven factors to consider when determining whether an independent contractor has been misclassified under the FLSA:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;

2. Investments by the worker and the employer;

3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship;

4. Nature and degree of control;

5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business;

6. Skill and initiative; and

7. Additional factors.

Under federal law, the rulemaking process involves three main steps. First, the agency posts a proposed new regulation. That’s what the DOL did in October.

Second, there is a public comment period, in which anyone can submit a comment to the DOL. The most effective comments tend to assist the agency in evaluating its proposed rule, such as explaining likely unintended consequences or identifying concerns with how it is written. Comments can also offer legal arguments as to why the agency’s proposed rule is not consistent with the law it is supposed to be interpreting.

Finally, after reviewing the comments, the agency will publish a final rule. The final rule might differ from the proposed rule, or it could be the same. Or the agency can jettison the proposed rule entirely and do nothing. Here that last option is unlikely. The DOL will almost certainly issue a new rule.

On December 13, I submitted a lengthy comment on behalf of Flex, the trade organization representing app-based rideshare and delivery platforms. The full comment is available here, and I thought it might be helpful to summarize the main points for this audience.

The comment included two parts.

Part One argues that the DOL should not abandon the current rule (the 2021 Rule), which was passed less than two years ago. The 2021 Rule was adopted after a thorough rulemaking process and comment period, and the rule was developed based on a detailed analysis by the DOL of decades of case law. The 2021 Rule focused on two core factors, rather than offering a multitude of factors that have no pre-assigned weight. The 2021 Rule offered more predictability for businesses and contractors, and predictability in the law is — to put it bluntly — good. A regulation should add clarity, and the 2021 Rule added clarity.

Part One also pointed out that the 2021 Rule had done little to damper the DOL’s efforts at combatting misclassification. The DOL has published a long list of successes in obtaining settlements and judgments in the last three months alone.

Abandoning the 2021 Rule would also be arbitrary and capricious, meaning it might not survive a legal challenge, and we urged the DOL not to make a change.

Part Two argues that even if the DOL decides to abandon the 2021 Rule, the proposed new rule needs some work. Part Two focused on seven aspects of the proposed new rule that the DOL should change.

The key thing to remember is that the DOL wants to go back to a multi-factor test. Multi-factor tests have been around for a long time, but the devil here is in the details. If you read the DOL’s description of each factor and how it should be applied, the DOL is putting its fingers on the scale, taking every close call (and some that aren’t close) and resolving them in favor of employee status.

I will list the seven arguments below to provide a general sense of the key points. But, since this is supposed to be a quick read format, I’m not going to wade into the details. You can read the full comment if you like.

From the Table of Contents to Part Two:

1) In Factor #1, the Commentary about “Managerial Skill” Should Be Deleted or Revised Because It Fails to Account for the Realities of 21st Century Work.

2) Factor #2 Should Be Substantially Revised to Remove Provisions That Are Illogical, Incompatible with Economic Realities, and Contrary to FLSA Case Law.

3) Factor #4 Should Remove the Commentary That Legally Required Control May Be Relevant Evidence of Control Because This Commentary Is Contrary to Controlling Case Law, Contrary to this Department’s Own Guidance, and Not Probative of the Economic Realities of a Relationship.

4) In Factor #4, Use of Technology to Supervise Should Not Be Referenced as a Relevant Control Factor.

5) Factor #5 Should Preserve the Current “Integrated Unit of Production” Analysis and Should Not Adopt a Flawed “Integral Part” Analysis That is Contrary to Case Law and Legally Unsupported.

6) Any Final Rule Should Preserve the Helpful Subregulatory Guidance in Fact Sheet #13, Clarifying That Certain Factors Are Not Relevant.

7) Any Final Rule Should Replace the Term “Employer” with “Principal” or a Similarly Neutral Term.

You can read the complete arguments here.

And now onto Step Three of the DOL’s rulemaking process. Last week, the Biden Administration published its overall regulatory agenda for 2023. It included a May 2023 placeholder for a proposed final rule. That’s just a best guess at this point, and with more than 50,000 comments for the DOL to review, the actual release date may be several months later. But the DOL, at least at present, appears prepared to move forward with a new rule to determine independent contractor vs. employee status under the FLSA.

We’ll continue to monitor developments, in a roundabout way.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
12.27.22
by

What to Watch for in 2023: Big Changes May Be Coming for Independent Contractor and Joint Employment Laws

If you google “what to watch for 2023,” you’ll mostly get tips on soon-to-be-released movies and streaming video shows. You’ll get grammatically impossible generic hype like “movies we can’t wait to see” (except the whole point is that you have to wait to see them) and you’ll get grammatically impossible niche hype like “The most anticipated Korean dramas and movies we can’t wait to watch in 2023.”

We won’t peddle hype in this post, and you’ll literally have to wait for all of the things addressed below. But here are five important developments to watch for in 2023.

1. The test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee is likely to change, at least under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Department of Labor proposed a new multi-factor test, and the period for public comment ended December 13. The DOL is likely to roll out a new test in 2023. It will replace the current core factors test described here.

2. The test for Joint Employment is likely to change, at least under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In September, the NLRB proposed a new test for determining when joint employment exists under the NLRA. You can read more here. The public comment period has closed, and we can expect a new test sometime in 2023.

3. The NLRB is likely to rule that independent contractor misclassification, by itself, is an unfair labor practice. The NLRB General Counsel has expressed an intent to reverse the Velox Express decision from 2019, in which the Board ruled that misclassification was not an automatic ULP. More information is here. Now that the Board majority has switched from Republican to Democrat, expect a decision in 2023 that creates an automatic ULP when there’s a finding of worker misclassification.

4. Expect state legislatures to keep changing the tests for Independent Contractor vs. Employee. Some states will try to make it harder to maintain independent contractor status by passing ABC Tests, in either a standard or strict version. A few conservative states may go the other way and adopt the latest version of the Uniform Worker Classification Act proposed by ALEC. The law would create a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain requirements are followed, including having a written contract. Versions of this law have been passed in West Virginia and Louisiana. You can read more here. Expect Oklahoma to be next.

5. Expect significant rulings on California independent contractor law. Several important cases are pending. These include Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5. Oral argument was held in the Ninth Circuit in July 2022. In another case, the California Court of Appeal is considering the legality of Prop 22, the successful ballot measure that helped to protect independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers using app services. Oral argument in that case, Castellanos v. State of California, was held in December 2022.

The law regarding contingent workforce is constantly changing, and 2023 looks to be another year of significant transformation. As always, it will be a good idea to watch these new developments carefully, as they will likely have a significant impact on companies using independent contractors and other contingent workforce arrangements.

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2023!

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

© 2022 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge