So what are you doing on Feb 26th? I hope you can join me for the 2025 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law.
This is our group’s signature annual event, and we are bringing it back to Cleveland. Be ready for a full day of high-level discussion on cutting edge topics and what companies need to know for 2025. This is not a basic lecture series, like you might have attended elsewhere. Instead, the Master Class program features small group sessions with lots of opportunity for interaction.
You can click here for registration, which is complimentary.
The program allows each participant to choose from various elective sessions throughout the day, so you can customize your agenda to focus on the topics that most interest you. The agenda is linked here.
I will be leading the 2:30 session called Avoiding Accidental Employment: A Strategy Session on Independent Contractors and Joint Employment.
I hope to see you there, and please contact me if you have any questions. When you register, be sure to list me as your BakerHostetler contact so that I will be notified. CLE, HRCI, and SHRM credits will be provided.
Feel free to forward the invitation to others. All are welcome, so long as each attendee registers.
Sometimes things don’t make sense when you read them. Like this: Here’s an adorable video of a dog getting hit by a car.
You need to dig deeper to make sense of it. If you watch the video, you’ll understand. The sentence is true, and the video is adorable.
Another thing that didn’t make sense to me when I first read it is that Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, was a co-sponsor of the PRO Act.
I had to dig deeper. Is that really true? It is.
Remember the PRO Act? It’s an acronym for Protecting the Right to Organize. It’s a Democrat-sponsored bill that threatens to blow up the gig economy and convert most independent contractors to employees.
The PRO Act would change the definition of “employee” under the NLRA so that all workers are presumed to be employees, not independent contractors, unless the strictest version of the ABC Test is met. That’s the same test as in California, but without all the exceptions.
In the 2023 version of the PRO Act, a worker is an employee under the NLRA unless (all 3):
(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;
(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and
(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.
Yes, that’s the same dreaded Part B that makes California such a difficult place to maintain independent contractor relationships.
The PRO Act would also broaden the definition of joint employment under the NLRA.
Chavez-DeRemer was one of three Republicans to co-sponsor the bill.
The PRO Act will not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate, so it’s not going to pass anytime soon (so long as the filibuster rule remains intact). But this bill is so pro-union that her support should be of concern to any business that engage contractors.
Chavez DeRomer served only one term in Congress, so she did not build an extensive record. But her support of the PRO Act is a part of that limited record.
I expect we’ll learn more about her views during the confirmation process. Her support of the PRO Act is something to keep an eye on. Getting hit with the PRO Act (or some DOL-authorized version of it) would be far worse that the damage done by the car hitting the dog in the video, which you really should watch if you skipped over the link above.
Snakes may have an eating disorder. Is cannibalism an eating disorder?
A wildlife technician for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources was searching for eastern indigo snakes, when he found a four-footer with an unusual appetite. Upon capture, the snake vomited up other snakes. The snake has eaten another indigo snake (no relation?), a rate snake, and possibly a rattlesnake, which may or may not have still been alive. Published reports of the incident are unclear about the rattlesnake.
Turning on your own species is not unique to snakes. We see independent contractors try that trick all the time. They’re content to be contractors until they decide they’re unhappy, at which point they sue and claim to have been an employee all along.
A recent Fifth Circuit case stood out to me for two reasons:
(1) The contractor had made previous statements, under oath, that he was self-employed. I wanted to see if the court would hold those against him.
(2) If the court applied the economic realities test, I wanted to see which version of the test it would use. Would the court apply the new DOL version of the test?
Here’s what happened. The Killick Group provides inspection services in the oil, gas, and energy industries. When the need arises for a job, the company engages third party independent contractor inspectors to perform the work.
One of those third party inspectors was Guillermo Gray. Gray was a certified welding and coding inspector with his own company. Gray sued Killick Group, alleging that he was an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and should have received overtime pay.
In defending the claim, Killick Group used past statements by Gray against him. In 2015, Gray was convicted of driving while intoxicated. When applying to secure a work-only driver’s license, he attested that he was “self-employed” as an inspector, and he listed his own company, Veritas Inspections, Inc., as his employer.
Killick Group argued that Gray was judicially estopped from claiming to be an employee, since he attested previously that he was self-employed. Killick Group also argued that Gray did not meet the test to qualify as an employee under the FLSA.
The trial court agreed with the judicial estoppel argument and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit had some concerns with the estoppel argument and decided to analyze the case under the FLSA.
The appeals court applied an economic realities test, considering five factors:
(1) the degree of control exercised by the alleged employer; (2) the extent of the relative investments of the worker and the alleged employer; (3) the degree to which the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss is determined by the alleged employer; (4) the skill and initiative required in performing the job; and (5) the permanency of the relationship.
The court determined that Gray was an independent contractor under the test.
Two things stand out to me about this case.
First, the Fifth Circuit did not consider the version of the test created by the DOL in its recent independent contractor regulation. The Fifth Circuit applied the same five-part test that Fifth Circuit courts had applied in the past.
Second, I wish the Fifth Circuit would have analyzed the judicial estoppel argument. Since the court determined that Gray was not covered by the FLSA, the court did not consider the judicial estoppel argument. I find the judicial estoppel argument intriguing, and I like it as a tool — if it will work. Independent contractors regularly assert that they have independent businesses, such as when taking tax deductions and filing a Schedule C. As an advocate for companies, I’d like to be able to use those assertions against an individual who later claims to be an employee. It would have been helpful to have Fifth Circuit case law supporting that argument.
Both of these takeaways are worth digesting. I will digest them more thoroughly than the indigo snake digested its meals, one of which may or may not have still been alive at the time of regurgitation. The mystery of what happened to the possibly-eaten, possibly-still-alive rattlesnake remains unsolved. I choose to believe it was eaten and lived. That makes for the better story.
In 1995, a man robbed two Pittsburgh banks during the day. He wore no disguise and was easily identified by surveillance cameras and arrested. This surprised the man.
The man was surprised because he had covered himself in lemon juice, and he believed that lemon juice made him invisible to video cameras. Obviously, it doesn’t and it didn’t. Lemon juice does not prevent a person from being seen.
Now let’s talk about staffing agency temps and being seen. If your temps are integrated into your workforce, there is a high likelihood you are a joint employer.
If your staffing agency temp improperly pays your temp, and the temp files a wage and hour claim, you can’t just drench yourself in lemon juice and hope not to be seen. Chances are, you’ll be sued too.
If you are a joint employer, you are likely liable for wage and hour violations by the staffing agency, even though you had no control over the staffing agency‘s pay practices. For liability purposes, their mistake is your mistake.
One of the best ways to avoid getting drawn into a class action filed by an agency temp is to require, in your staffing agency agreements, that all temps sign an individual arbitration agreement. All temps should be required, as a condition of being placed at your company, to agree that any claims they have against your company will be resolved in arbitration, on an individual basis, not through a class action.
How do you do this? In three parts.
First, insert in your staffing agency agreement a clause requiring that all temps placed at your facility must first signed an arbitration agreement, a copy of which will be attached to the staffing agency agreement.
Second, draft the individual arbitration agreement exactly the way you want it, and attach it to the staffing agency agreement as an exhibit. Include a class waiver. Consider allowing small claims to be carved out and resolved in small claims court. Consider omitting AAA or JAMS as a designated arbitration administrator, to reduce the risk of mass arbitration filings. You can require arbitration without designating any agency to administer it. The agencies charge high fees, which creates the leverage that makes mass arbitration an effective tool of the plaintiffs’ bar. No arbitration agency = no administrative fees = probably no mass arbitration.
Third, require the agency to maintain copies of these agreements. You want the ability to audit compliance. You can also require the agency to show you a copy of each signed agreement before each temp begins an assignment.
It is frustrating to think that your business could be jointly liable for wage and hour violations by a staffing agency when you have no control over how they pay their employees. But with joint employment, that risk is a reality. You need to prepare for that possibility well in advance.
The staffing agency agreement provides you an ideal opportunity to plan ahead and protect yourself against this possibility.
Lemon juice might be a nice addition to iced tea, but it does not provide any protection against security cameras or class action lawsuits. You’ll need arbitration agreements for that.
Click here for more tips about what should be in your staffing agency agreements.
Invented by Virgil A. Gates of West Virginia, the Guard is intended for “holding the moustache out of the way of food or liquid while eating or drinking.” As you may have already guessed, Virgil filed for a patent in 1876. Why would you have guessed that? Because 1876 was the last time anyone was named Virgil.
Moustaches, while certainly worth guarding (especially those of the handlebar variety), aren’t the only thing in need of protection. Solo independent business owners in the delivery and rideshare industries have been under attack, as class action lawsuits and government agency activity increasingly seek to take away their independence by declaring them employees.
In 2020, California enacted Prop 22, which preserved independent contractor status for these drivers so long as the app companies provided a list of preset benefits and guaranteed pay. In a statewide vote, Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 59% of the vote.
Massachusetts may soon follow suit. A similar ballot measure is likely to be considered by voters in the Bay State about a year from now.
The ballot measure, if successful, would create a system like Prop 22 in Massachusetts. Delivery and rideshare drivers would be granted independent contractor status, so long as the app company they were using provided them with a litany of worker benefits. The required benefits would include:
Guaranteed pay at 120% of state minimum wage for time spent completing delivery or rideshare requests;
Additional per mile pay for each mile driven in a personal vehicle;
A healthcare stipend for drivers who average 25 or more hours per week;
One hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked;
Accident insurance; and
Prohibitions on discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.
Click here for the official summary of the proposed law.
If the ballot initiative receives enough signatures, it may appear on the ballot for a statewide vote in November 2024. Alternatively, the legislature may choose to consider the issue on its own, before the 2024 general election.
Initiatives like this one and California’s successful Prop 22 provide a reasonable, common sense third alternative to what is usually a binary choice between classification as an independent contractor (with no employee rights) and an employee. Rideshare and delivery drivers generally value their independence and the ability to operate their own business. Laws like this one allow them to do so as contractors while receiving certain benefits and guarantees.
[This was college move-in week, so I’m a bit behind on writing a new post for this week. Instead I’m re-posting a favorite from 2020. I like this tip for staffing agency agreements!]
Suppose you’ve got a staffing agency worker (we’ll call him Shorty) who’s a bit vertically challenged and is self-conscious about it. He tells you he’s gonna need some time off because he found this:
A limb-lengthening clinic in Las Vegas claims it can make you a few inches taller through minimally invasivce surgery. According to this article on OddityCentral.com, here’s how it works:
“We cut the leg bones – either femur (upper leg bone) or tibia (lower leg bone) – and insert a device that slowly stretches them out which makes you taller permanently.”
“I insert a device that responds to an external remote control that the patient will control at home. Once the device is set, I place screws at the top and bottom of the device to lock into position. This is done on each leg.”
The doc says you then just press a button at home and you’ll stretch by 1 mm a day. Just like nature intended.
So, back to Shorty. Suppose he has this surgery one weekend and comes back to work a bit achy from all the stretching. He wants some extra breaks to get him off his feet. Or he wants you to provide him a stool so he can rest more often from his station on the assembly line. Do you have a reasonable accommodation obligation?
If you’re in HR, you know that weird stuff happens, so maybe you hadn’t considered limb-lengthening, but let’s use this as an excuse to think about relationships with staffing agency workers and what your obligations might be for medical issues.
This is unlikely to be a disability situation, unless Shorty’s stature is due to a medical condition. But you’ll undoubtedly have staffing agency workers who do have disabilities and who do need reasonable accommodations.
That brings us to today’s Tip of the Day:
Consider adding to your staffing agency contracts a clause requiring the agency to pay the expenses for any reasonable accommodations provided to qualified staffing agency employees to allow them to perform their job functions.
Accomodations can sometimes be expensive, and it’s not unforeseeable that staffing agency workers will need accommodations at some point. Plan ahead, and build this contingency into the contract.
A clause like that may lengthen your contract a bit, but this lengthening can be done in a sentence or two — with no surgical intervention, no cuts in your femur or tibia, and no insertion of a stretch button in your leg. That’s the kind of lengthening I’d be much more inclined to try. I’ll leave my limbs just the way they are.
Rock history is filled with questions. There’s “Questions 67 and 68,” a 1969 release by the band then known as Chicago Transit Authority, about a girl that singer Robert Lamm was seeing in 1967 and ‘68. There’s “Question” by the Moody Blues, reflecting on the war in Vietnam. There’s even ? and the Mysterians, a typographically monikered pre-punk band that gave us “96 Tears.” (Fun fact: The band members were the children of migrant workers who had settled in Michigan.)
I can’t sing at all, but I can field questions. One question I get a lot is, “Should I make this person an independent contractor?”
Note the phrasing of this question. It’s not “Can I?” — that’s a legal question — but “Should I?” That’s partly a legal question and partly a business question. The answer largely depends on your tolerance for risk.
When trying to decide “Should I?” ask yourself three questions:
1. What is the likelihood the IC relationship will be challenged?
If no one ever questions the relationship, it never becomes an issue. But it’s not enough to consider whether you think the contractor will ever challenge the relationship. You need to worry about federal and state agencies, auditors, and other similarly situated contractors who might not be as content with their classification. Consider also that a contractor who is happily working might be less happy if your company terminates the relationship. A contractor who wants to be a contractor now might have other ideas later if the relationship ends badly and the contractor seeks legal advice.
Here are a few situations where there’s a high likelihood of a classification challenge:
Volume: The company works with a lot of independent contractors.
Industry: The contractors are performing services in an industry that is under heightened scrutiny, such as rideshare, installers, delivery drivers.
High Dollars: The independent contractors are paid a substantial amount of money, either individually or collectively.
General Audit Risk: The company considers an audit to be likely for any reason, even if unrelated to worker classification.
Similar Employees: The company has employees who do the same or similar work as the independent contractor.
Here are a few situations where there’s a low likelihood of a classification challenge:
One-off. It’s a one-off retention, meaning there’s just one independent contractor; there are no other independent contractors who are similarly situated.
Shared Expectations: The independent contractor wants to be an independent contractor (although that can change if the relationship ends badly).
Low Dollars: Low dollar value of the contract.
No Similar Employees: There are no employees doing what the contractor has been retained to do.
2. If there’s a challenge, what is the likelihood of success?
This is the purely legal question. Is the independent contractor classification correct under all of the applicable laws (federal, state, and local)?
That’s the question we usually explore in this blog (see all other blog posts, haha), but the legal analysis is only part of the equation you should be considering when asking the “Should I?” question. The answer to the legal question will depend on the facts, the contract, the applicable law, and the jurisdiction. This is the part where you want to reach out to a lawyer.
3. If misclassification is found, what are the likely damages or adverse consequences?
Often it’s a close call whether a worker is misclassified. Do you want to take that risk? Sometimes the stakes are so low that a company might be more willing to take the risk. If there are only a few independent contractors and they are not paid much money, you might be more willing to take the risk if there are facts that could support IC status (even if there are also facts that go the other way).
In making this assessment, there are generally several factors to consider:
A) What laws might be violated if the contractor is misclassified?
Sometimes an IC classification seems questionable on the facts, but the impact of misclassification would be very low. Suppose the IC works 15 hours a week, never more than 8 hours in a day, is paid at a rate of $20/hour or more, performs non-manual labor, and has other clients. Even if this worker is misclassified:
There’s no federal minimum wage or overtime violation (hourly rate exceeds minimum wage, no overtime hours).
There’s no state or local minimum wage or overtime violation (same).
There’s no failure to provide employee benefits (probably not eligible because part-time).
The risk of a workplace injury and resulting workers’ compensation claim is minimal (based on the nature of the work).
An unemployment claim is unlikely because the IC would continue to have other work (has other clients).
There could be local wage statement violations, meal or rest break violations, or disclosure violations. There could be a failure to reimburse business expenses. There could be tax penalties for failure to withhold. There could be an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act (see point #3 in this post). There could be penalties for failing to comply with local freelancer laws. There could be assessments for failing to pay into the unemployment and workers compensation systems. But none of these adverse findings are likely to create significant economic exposure under this fact pattern.
On the other hand, suppose the IC works varying hours per week, perhaps up to 60 hours, is paid on a fixed per project basis that would result in an hourly wage below the minimum if the IC worked a high number of hours, has no other clients, and performs manual labor. Suppose there are several ICs doing the same kind of work with the same IC classification. Now the risks are much higher in each category. You’re looking at possible violations of many laws, with potentially significant economic consequences.
B) What does the statute say about damages?
What damages are available? Are there penalties? Liquidated or punitive damages? Attorneys’ fees?
C) Is the potential misclassification systemic?
If the potential misclassification is of one person, the damages are going to be limited. If there are many ICs doing the same thing, the potential damages are multiplied. And, if there are many similarly situated ICs, a plaintiff’s lawyer might find the case attractive as a potential class action. If there are violations of law, your company may be liable for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.
D) Is the use of contractors vital to the business?
For some companies, a finding of widespread misclassification could put the entire business model at risk. For other companies, a few adjustments can be made and life goes on.
E) Are there individual arbitration agreements in place?
Individual arbitration agreements can prevent class action litigation, but they don’t solve every problem. Is there a risk of mass arbitrations? Is your business still subject to California PAGA claims? Is the arbitration agreement enforceable as written?
F) Are there other practical or business considerations?
If there’s a finding of misclassification, what else might happen? Can you justify your decisions if questioned by your CEO or the board? Will there be adverse publicity? Would the business suffer reputational damage? Would the company’s value or stock price suffer? What would it cost to defend a claim, even if you win? If the company gets sued based on the decision to retain workers as contractors not employees, would your job be at risk?
That’s a lot of questions.
I know.
And we haven’t covered it all either. There are other factors to consider too, but hopefully this is enough to get you to start thinking about how to conceptualize the “Should I?” question.
The main point to remember is that “Should I?” is not purely a legal question. It requires business judgment and risk calculation too.
If you’ve had enough of the questions for today, I will leave you with this, courtesy of the best band to come out of Jacksonville, Florida.
In ancient and medieval warfare, cavalrymen who fought battles with lances were known as lancers. Actually, they were probably known as whatever Assyrians or Normans or Persians called lancers in their languages, but that’s not important right now.
I should share that my junior high, Palmetto, was also known as the Lancers when I attended in the 1980s. I don’t know if they are still the Lancers, but I do know that they are no longer Palmetto Junior High. Instead, the school is now known as Palmetto Middle School, which is unfortunate and a bit cruel to the teenage cheerleaders who must wear the school’s initials across their chests.
Medieval lancers might have been paid, or might not. Don’t know, don’t care. I know that PMS Lancers are not paid. But this post is not about free lancers. It’s about freelancers. And that space makes a lot of difference.
Los Angeles is the latest major city to pass an ordinance that imposes several strict requirements when retaining freelancers. The Freelance Worker Protection Ordinance took effect July 1, and L.A. now joins NYC, Seattle, and Minneapolis as cities that require a written contract when retaining a solo independent contractor.
This L.A. law is not a TV drama where “office politics and romance often distract the legal staffers from matters in the courtroom.” No, this L.A. law is more boring. This law applies when retaining a solo contractor who will earn $600 or more in a calendar year. If that’s the case (see what I did there?), then these rules now apply:
Must have a written contract that includes:
name, mailing address, phone, email of both hiring party and freelance worker,
itemization of services to be provided,
rate and method of compensation, and
date by which payment is due, or manner for determining due date.
Payment must be made by the due date or, if none is specified, within 30 days after services are rendered.
Both the hiring party and freelancer must retain records for 4 years.
Any waiver of these requirements is unenforceable.
The NYC, Seattle, and Minneapolis ordinances also require written contracts with similar contents when retaining solo independent contractors who will earn about the same amount. The NYC law applies to work worth $800 in one project or in the aggregate over 120 days. The Minneapolis law applies to work valued at $600 in a calendar year or $200 in a single week. The Seattle law applies to work valued at $600 in a calendar year.
Businesses and individuals who retain solo independent contractors in these cities need to be aware of these laws, which apply even if the hiring party is located elsewhere.
Hiring parties who fail to comply may be liable for double damages, fines for not providing a written contract, penalties for late payments, and attorneys’ fees. The most egregious violators may also be subjected to cavalry charges and lance attacks. Maybe.
In 1925, the first motel opened in San Luis Obispo, California, according to The People History. It was originally called the Milestone Mo-Tel and charged $1.25 per night. The term motel was created to shorten the phrase Motorists’ Hotel, the defining feature of which was the ability of visitors to park their vehicles directly outside their room.
Why are we focused on 1925? Because laws written in 1925 continue to directly impact legal disputes over misclassification in 2023, even though the facts being applied to those laws were so far beyond what lawmakers could have even imagined at the time. The application of outdated laws is something we deal with all the time, including with the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in the 1930s. The intersection of old laws with new technologies creates sticky legal problems. And today’s post is about one of these sticky situations.
In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined the First, Seventh, and Ninth in ruling that rideshare drivers with individual arbitration agreements are required to arbitrate misclassification disputes, as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In other words, the FAA’s transportation exception does not apply.
I’ll explain why that’s important, and you’ll see where 1925 fits in.
For companies engaging large numbers of independent contractors, misclassification class actions pose a significant risk. Individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers provide important protections against that risk. Generally, the FAA requires the enforcement of arbitration agreements.
But the FAA has an exception. Under section 1 of the FAA, the Act does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
Historically, this exception was created because seaman and railroad workers were subject to a different set of federal requirements for dispute resolution. Remember, the FAA was enacted in 1925. People still said “seaman” without giggling.
In 1925, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in for a full term, in the first inauguration to be be broadcast on the cutting-edge new technology of radio. The Scopes Monkey Trial captivated the nation, following the indictment of Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes for daring to teach human evolution. In other Tennessee news, the Grand Ole Opry debuted on Nashville radio, with the less-catchy name, the “WSM Barn Dance.”
So this was a different time. No one was thinking you could order a car on your cell phone, track your route on your cell phone, then pay and rate your driver by cell phone. In 1925, we were still a year away from the first trans-Atlantic phone call.
Anyway, plaintiffs’ lawyers attempting to bring misclassification class actions frequently argue that rideshare drivers fall within the transportation exemption, and therefore the FAA does not require enforcement of the drivers’ signed arbitration agreements. In Singh v. Uber Transp., a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit held that the transportation exception does not apply (and therefore the FAA does apply) because the vast majority of rides were intrastate, not interstate. The decision was issued in April, but there was a petition asking for a rehearing by the full circuit. Earlier this month, that petition was denied, and the Third Circuit’s decision therefore will stand, assuming there is no Supreme Court review.
The takeaway for companies making widespread use of independent contractors is to continue to use arbitration agreements, even in industries that may involve transportation. The scope of the transportation exemption is constantly being tested, but so far for rideshare, the outcome of most court decisions has been that the FAA still applies and the transportation exception does not apply.
For those interested in how the opening story ends, the Milestone Mo-Tel was renamed the Motel Inn, then closed in 1991. The building is now the administrative building for the Apple Farm Inn next door. The Apple Farm Inn charges a bit more than $1.25 per night, but it promises “the excitement of creating future memories.”
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.
Who Is My Employee? 