Who WAS My Employee? Companies Must Provide This Notice to Former Employees By May 31.

Please hold. The past is calling. Source: LOC

This weekend I watched The Call, a South Korean horror film (yes, subtitles) about a woman who receives a call from 20 years earlier. The past and present keep changing as the two callers interact over time. Oddly there were two movies released in 2020 named The Call. It’s this one.

The past can affect the present, but not usually the way it did in the movie.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) imposes new COBRA-related obligations on employers, including notice requirements to former employees. In this blog, we usually ask Who Is My Employee?, but this week’s post is about Who Was My Employee?

ARPA changes the COBRA rules for April 1 through September 30, 2021. Employees who are involuntary terminated or become COBRA-eligible due to a reduction in hours are entitled to a 100% subsidy on their COBRA premiums for six months, April 1 to September 30. The company must pay the premiums, which are then reimbursed by the government through payroll tax credits.

ARPA extends this subsidy opportunity to former employees too, even those who did not sign up for COBRA when they were terminated. Under ARPA, those individuals get a second chance to sign up if they became COBRA-eligible less than 18 months ago.

Employers must send new COBRA notices to individuals who were involuntarily terminated (or who became COBRA-eligible due to a reduction in hours) within the last 18 months, including those who did not choose coverage at the time. These individuals can take advantage of the subsidized premiums from April through September, unless their 18-month COBRA eligibility period ends earlier or they become ineligible for another reason. Eligibility ends if the individual becomes eligible for other healthcare coverage or Medicare.

The DOL will be publishing model notices by April 10.

Employers must send this notice by May 31.

There’s more that employers need to know about changes to COBRA. The changes mean that your template severance agreements probably need to be revised too. There are new COBRA notice requirements for departing employees and new notices that must be sent when the subsidies are about to end.

I drafted a post addressing these subjects for BakerHostetler’s Employment Law Spotlight blog, which you can read here.

Reaching back 18 months to send notices to departed employees is an unusual requirement, but employers will have to make reasonable efforts to track these people down. Fortunately, unlike in The Call, employers don’t need to worry about anything that happened 20 years ago. The 18-month lookback is plenty to worry about.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Macaques & The Guess Who: Why the New Independent Contractor Rule Won’t Take Effect March 8

Photo by Hectonichus and, yes, this fella is sticking his tongue out at you (but he can’t remember why).

A Swedish study concluded that baboons, pig-tailed macaques, and squirrel monkeys have some of the worst short-term memories in the animal kingdom, barely exceeding that of bees. The point is, never ask a pig-tailed macaque where you left your car keys.

Having a short memory can be a problem in some situations, but not it’s not an issue if you’re just trying to recall the latest Department of Labor test for independent contractor misclassification. Everything you recall from six weeks ago is being undone anyway. (Or Undun, if you’re a fan of the spelling-impaired Canadian band The Guess Who.)

Remember the new rule issued by the DOL in January 2021 for determining employee vs. independent contractor status? It was going to modify the Economic Realities Test to focus on two core factors: (1) the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on personal initiative or investment. The new rule was to take effect March 8. The test would apply only to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

No more. Last week, the DOL delayed implementation until May, but the rule most likely will be rescinded completely. Undun.

This decision comes on the heels of the DOL rescinding two opinion letters that were also issued in January. Undun. The letters provided guidance on determining independent contractor status in a few particular situations.

The Economic Realities Test remains the test used to determine who is an employee under the FLSA. It’s a multi-factor balancing test.

So if you’ve been relying on recent DOL guidance for how to apply that test, channel your inner pig-tailed macaque. Whatever you recall from January can be forgotten. And where did I put my car keys?

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

(Just Like) Starting Over: Biden Salutes John Lennon on Joint Employer Policy

The 1980 Double Fantasy album is meh, featuring alternating tracks by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. But there’s at least on gem on that album, and it’s the very first track: “(Just Like) Starting Over.” The song was originally titled “Starting Over” but the parenthetical was a late addition, reportedly inserted to make sure listeners knew this wasn’t Dolly Parton’s country music chart topper from the same year, “Starting Over Again.” Not that anyone has ever confused John Lennon with Dolly Parton, but I get it.

President Biden’s policy on joint employment is already embracing the same theme, even before Marty Walsh gets confirmed as Secretary of Labor. The DOL ain’t wastin time no more. (And speaking of the Allman Brothers, if you haven’t yet seen the documentary Jimmy Carter: Rock N’ Roll President, it’s worth 96 minutes of your time.)

Late last week, the DOL announced it has submitted a new proposed rule for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The text of the proposed rule has not yet been released, but here’s what we know:

1. The new rule would replace the regulations enacted by the Trump DOL in March 2020. The March 2020 regulation required actual control for a finding of joint employment and focused the joint employer analysis on four factors — right to hire/fire, supervision of work conditions or schedules, rate/method of pay, and control of personnel files. That test made it tougher to establish joint employment.

The March 2020 regulations are already the subject of litigation, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case to decide whether the new rules are valid. That means the March 2020 rule could be on the chopping block no matter, with either the Second Circuit or the Biden DOL doing the chopping.

2. The new rule will be (just like) starting over. It will re-adopt an Obama-era joint employment test. But which one?

Option A:

Before the March 2020 rule requiring actual control, all that was need to be a joint employer was the right to control certain aspects of the relationship.

When using a staffing agency for staff augmentation, for example, there was a pretty high likelihood that would be joint employment, even if the staffing agency had exclusive control over the four factors highlighted in the March 2020 test — setting wages, setting schedules, controlling pay, and maintaining personnel files. At a minimum, the new rule will go back to that standard.

Option B:

But there’s a worse option that could be in the cards. Five states are bound by a 2017 federal appeals ruling that adopts a much broader interpretation of joint employment. In a case called Salinas, the Fourth Circuit ruled that two businesses are joint employers unless they are “completely disassociated” from one another. The Fourth Circuit covers MD, NC, SC, VA, and WV. That decision suggests that every borrowed labor situation might automatically be joint employment, since the two companies have a contractual “association” with each other.

The Salinas decision was based on an old regulation, on the books since 1958, that the March 2020 regulation eliminated and replaced.

Which version of joint employment will the new Biden rule seek to adopt? Or will the DOL come up with a new test entirely?

Either way, we know that the test for joint employment will change in 2021 or 22, and the new rule will make it much more likely that staffing agency relationships and other borrowed labor arrangements create joint employment.

While the specifics of the new test are not yet known, we know enough already to start to plan. Staffing agency agreements should be checked and revised to protect against joint employment liability. This post provides a few of my favorite tips.

There are plenty of steps that can be taken to protect against joint employment, so long as businesses plan ahead and draft their contracts carefully. Change is coming, but we’ve been down this road before. It’s (just like) starting over.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Beary Scary: Will UK Uber Decision Bite US Businesses?

We saw this fella in Yellowstone. (C) my wife. Used with permission after arms-length negotiation involving chocolate.

Sometimes trouble comes at you from an unexpected direction. One Alaska resident learned this the hard way when she sat on her outhouse toilet and was bitten by a bear — from below. Didn’t see that coming.

US law on Independent Contractor vs. Employee is based on federal and state statutes and common law, but a decision last week from overseas has US businesses concerned. Should they be?

On Thursday, the UK High Court ruled that Uber drivers were “workers” under UK law, not independent contractors, and were therefore protected by minimum wage and other laws.

But I don’t think this ruling will bite US businesses in the arse. There are important differences between US and UK law, and those differences drove the outcome here.

In the US, someone is either an employee or an independent contractor. Those are the only two options. But under UK employment law, there are three categories:

  • Those employed under a contract of employment (US: employee; UK: employee/worker);
  • Those self-employed people who are in business on their own account and undertake work for their clients or customers (US/UK: independent contractor);
  • and an intermediate class of workers who are self-employed but who provide their services as part of a profession or business undertaking carried on by someone else (UK: worker).

Some UK statutory rights, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed, are limited to those employed under a contract of employment; but other rights, including those claimed in the UK case, apply to all “workers.”

The question in this case, therefore, was not whether the Uber drivers were employees, but merely whether they were “workers.” They were.

The decision also turned largely on a City of London requirement relating to licensing requirements for drivers for hire. The Uber drivers were under contract with Uber London, which had the required license.

The court considered elements of control, but this case was not decided under a US-style Right to Control Test, Economic Realities Test, or ABC Test. The rules we are used to seeing in the US don’t apply in the same way overseas.

In the end, this case is noteworthy in its result — that Uber drivers were protected by UK minimum wage law and other worker protections — but the legal basis for reaching that conclusion just doesn’t apply in the US.

We will continue to see increased pressure in the US for more worker protections, and we will continue to see challenges to worker classification. But US businesses don’t need to worry about the bite from this ruling from a few thousand miles east. Of more immediate concern, at least to Alaskans visiting the outhouse, is what might be waiting a few feet below.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Stop Licking My Face? DOL Rescinds Independent Contractor Guidance

Tasty! Image by Roman Michael Gottfried from Pixabay

In this issue of Science Focus Magazine, the BBC tackles the difficult question of Why Do Dogs Lick People?

Says Dr Emily Blackwell, a lecturer in companion animal behaviour and welfare at the University of Bristol, “It’s a greeting and can be taken as a compliment.”

Ok then. That’s a nice gesture.

But that’s not going to be the case with the new administration’s Department of Labor, apparently. Steps are already being taken to remove helpful guidance on whether workers qualify as employees or independent contractors.

That’s not a nice gesture. There will be no lovable face licking by the new DOL.

On January 19th, the Trump DOL issued two opinion letters addressing whether certain kinds of workers are employees are independent contractors and the appropriate test for making that determination.

But last week, under direction from the Biden Administration, the DOL rescinded the guidance. Here’s what the two letters covered:

  • FLSA2021-8: Addressing whether certain distributors of a manufacturer’s food products are employees or independent contractors under the FLSA.
  • FLSA2021-9: Addressing whether requiring tractor-trailer truck drivers to implement safety measures required by law constitutes control by the motor carrier for purposes of their status as employees or independent contractors under the FLSA, and whether certain owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors.

Under the Trump administration, the DOL had committed to publishing more opinion letters. These letters help the public understand the DOL’s interpretation of the law. They apply general rules to more specific situations. They answer questions. That’s good, right? Doesn’t the government want compliance? From the perspective of the business community, compliance is easier if we know what the DOL is thinking.

Fast forward to last week. Even though Marty Walsh has not yet been confirmed as Secretary of Labor, the DOL is already undoing what the DOL had recently done.

Looking ahead, we can expect to see fewer opinion letters, or maybe none. The Biden Administration has indicated that these types of unofficial guidance documents should not be issued. The Administration feels that it ties the hands of the DOL. During the Obama Administration, the DOL entirely discontinued the practice of publishing opinion letters on wage and hour issues, so a plunge back into the darkness seems likely to happen again under a Biden Administration DOL.

This is a bad trend for businesses trying to understand and comply with the law.

So my advice today? If you want some love and attention when trying to unravel the independent contractor versus employee conundrum, don’t look to the DOL for help. Instead, go get a puppy. It might lick your nose, which could be nice.

 

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Bad Call, Ref: Lawsuit Fails When Ref Sues the Wrong Party

Some athletic lads from the University of Illinois High School yearbook, 1921

When referees and umpires make bad calls, they can be truly memorable.

Remember when the University of Colorado beat Missouri on Fifth Down to win a 1990 NCAA football game? Or when the Saints were denied a shot at the Super Bowl in 2019 on a missed pass interference call? Or the blown safe at first call that ruined Armando Galarraga’s 2010 perfect game with two outs in the 9th?

In a lawsuit decided last week, a high school basketball ref made another bad call, resulting in dismissal of her claim.

Ginger Girard, a high school ref in Connecticut, sued the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials and the local Board, claiming that they engaged in employment discriminated by not giving her good ratings. She claimed the poor ratings were because of her gender, not her performance, and that the poor ratings caused her to lose financial opportunities.

But to bring a claim of employment discrimination under federal law, you have to sue your employer. The court ruled that the Association and the local Board were not the ref’s employer. She took a shot but didn’t even hit the rim. Case dismissed.

The ref then asked for the legal equivalent of instant replay, appealing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. But she airballed it again.

The Court of Appeals applied a Right to Control Test, finding that the Association and the Board did not control how she reffed games. (It’s worth noting that that the court used a 13-factor test, which is different from the Supreme Court’s 7-factor test, which is different from the IRS’s former 20-factor test, which is different from how several other courts define the relevant Right to Control Factors. To know your test, you’ve gotta know your court.) The Court of Appeals also pointed out that when she was retained to referee games, the participating schools paid her, not the Association or the Board. She sued the wrong party.

Refs make mistakes, and refs’ lawyers can whiff too. Whether on the court or in the court, you’ve got to know your opponent. Figuring out Who Is My Employee can make all the difference between victory and defeat.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Employee Benefits for Contractors? Don’t Overreact to New DOL Rule (or to Knife-Wielding Squirrels)

Terror in the backyard! Screen grab from @asdiamond on twitter

A knife-wielding squirrel was seen patrolling a backyard fence last week, according to this article in the Toronto Sun. Here’s the video evidence. Fortunately, no one took action and no one overreacted. The squirrel reportedly gnawed on the knife a bit, lost interest, and dropped it to pursue other squirrel-related passions. Everything turned out ok.

Not overreacting is important. Get all the facts, and look at the big picture before deciding whether to take action.

Same with the new DOL regulation on determining in dependent contractor status, first reported here.

This week I’ve seen two articles saying that, under the new rules, providing employee benefits to independent contractors does not tilt the scales in favor of employee status under the new rules. No, no, no! If you’ve seen that commentary, please disregard it. It is an overreaction, and if you provide traditional employee benefits to an independent contractor, that’s a sure sign of misclassification.

Now, let’s break that down a bit. Yes, it’s true that in the commentary to the new rule, the DOL indicated that providing some types of benefits to an independent contractor does not necessarily mean the contractor is misclassified. (As you will all undoubtedly recall from reading all 261 pages of the DOL commentary, that’s on pages 58-59.) But — and there’s a big but (one t) — it does not mean that you can freely start giving employee benefits to contractors.

First, let’s not overstate what the DOL is trying to say. The DOL is not saying you can provide traditional employee-type benefits to contractors, the same way you do for your employees. The DOL is saying that it’s not automatic misclassification under the FLSA if you provide a contractor with extra money for the contractor to help fund his/her own benefit plan, such as through the healthcare.gov exchanges.

Second, let’s not forget the very narrow scope of the DOL’s new rule. The new rule applies only to the FLSA. That is, it applies only for determining whether someone is owed overtime and a minimum wage. And here’s the important point: The FLSA and the new rule and the new test have nothing to do with determining independent contractor vs. employee status under federal tax and benefits law.

The test for determining whether someone is an employee under federal tax and employee benefit law is a Right to Control Test, not the FLSA Economic Realities Test addressed in the new rule. If you add your contractor to your regular employee benefit plan, you have almost certainly created an employment relationship under those laws. Or, perhaps worse, you could disqualify your plan by providing plan benefits to a non-employee.

Under either scenario, providing regular employee benefits to an independent contractor is a very bad idea under current federal law. In short, don’t do it.

Hopefully, federal law will eventually change to allow independent contractors better access to employee-type benefits without converting them to employees for all purposes. But we are a long way from there.

In the meantime, let’s not overreact. As for the new rule, Biden might invalidate it anyway before it is scheduled to take effect March 8.

As for knife-wielding squirrels, don’t confront them directly. You’ll just make them angry and more determined and–as you can see in this video–squirrels can be pretty darn creative when they are determined to get something.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Today’s Tip: Beware of Multi-State Issues (and Rudolf is a girl?!)

Neil deGrasse Tyson broke the news last week that Santa’s reindeer must be female, since they still have their antlers in the winter. Mind blown: Rudolf is a girl. #girlpower

It seems like should have figured that out earlier. Sometimes things are not as they seem. So let’s play some reindeer games.

Assessing independent contractors status isn’t always as it seems either. Do you pass the IRS Test? Congratulations, but that tells you nothing about whether your relationship meets state law tests. Did you win an unemployment claim on the basis that your contractor was not your employee? Congratulations, but that tells you nothing about whether your relationship has contractor status under federal wage and hour law.

To determine whether an independent contractor relationship is legitimate requires you to look at multiple tests across multiple laws across multiple jurisdictions.

Companies that retain contractors across multiple states should pay particular attention to the differences among multiple states and across multiple laws. The same relationship can be deemed employment under one test and independent contractor under another.

For example, in my home state of Ohio, the analysis of whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is subject to a long list of competing legal standards:

  1. Federal Income Tax: Right to Control (IRS factors)
  2. Ohio Income Tax:  Follows IRS
  3. ERISA, ADA, Title VII, ADEA: Right to Control (Darden Test)
  4. Affordable Care Act: Right to Control (Treasury Regs.)
  5. FLSA: Economic Realities Test
  6. NLRA: multi-factor hybrid/right to control test
  7. OH Unemployment (ODJFS): IRS old 20-Factor Test
  8. OH Workers Comp / Construction: Need 10 of 20 old IRS Factors
  9. OH Workers Comp / Other: Ohio Right to Control Test
  10. OH Discrimination (RC 4112): Ohio Right to Control Test

The complexity is similar in every state.  In Illinois, the list is about as long, but with different state law tests and standards:

  1. Federal Tax: Right to Control (IRS factors)
  2. ERISA, ADA, Title VII, ADEA: Right to Control (Darden Test)
  3. Affordable Care Act: Right to Control (Treasury Regs.)
  4. FLSA: Economic Realities Test
  5. NLRA: multi-factor hybrid/right to control test
  6. IL Unemployment: ABC Test
  7. IL Wage Payment & Collection Act: ABC Test
  8. IL Workers Compensation: Various factors, including control, relationship to company’s business
  9. But, if Construction, then Employee Classification Act:
    – Presumption is employee,
    – Then apply ABC Test,
    – Then apply 12-factor test to prove sole proprietorship or partnership is IC

And there are 48 more states just like these (but different).

So bottom line: Just like you can’t make assumptions about your reindeer’s gender based on its name, you can’t make assumptions about your contractor’s status based on what you call the relationship. You’ve gotta check the antlers — or the appropriate law.

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge

Buckle Up? Why The Gig Economy Should Love Biden’s HHS Pick

Back before seatbelts were a thing, Sears sold this handy Auto Strap for Front-Seat Tots. Tie your toddler to some part of the car, and drive carefree! What could go wrong?

Ok, things have changed a bit when it comes to driving. Seatbelts and airbags seem to have carried the day. Things have also changed quite a bit in the modern workforce, with the gig economy pushing aside traditional employer-employee work relationships.

Something important just happened to help California gig economy companies, and it’s gone under the radar. Biden named California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as his pick for Health & Human Services. Why should gig economy companies care who Biden’s HHS pick is? Because naming Becerra to HHS means Becerra will no longer be California’s Attorney General. And that’s good new because a key part of Becerra’s agenda as State AG had been to knock around gig economy companies as much as possible.

Becerra tried to sabotage Prop 22 by giving it a misleading description on the ballot, but voters saw through it and passed the measure anyway.

Becerra has been the driving force behind California’s lawsuits against ride share companies, trying to force them to reclassify drivers as employees.

But now, assuming he gets confirmed, someone else will take over as California AG. Hopefully it will be someone with less of an anti-gig economy agenda than Becerra. We’ll see. But for now, this pick seems to be good news. I don’t know what he’ll do as HHS Secretary, but I know what he won’t do as HHS Secretary, and that’s to pick fights with companies who help to keep the gig economy strong.

So strap in and let’s see what this new ride will bring. Just be sure to use a seatbelt, not a $1.88 standing harness.

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Statue or Statute? When Defending a Misclassification Claim, Don’t Forget a Limitations Defense

I took this photo in Paris. Creepy, isn’t it?

When a New Zealand man was caught snooping around with a torch at a building where he didn’t belong, someone called the authorities. When the local police arrived, the man was still there but still as a stone. He was pretending to be a statue.

The ruse failed, and the man was taken into custody.

The moral of the story, I suppose, is that elaborate ruses don’t make good excuses.

The same can be said for a group of movers who claimed that a moving company had misclassified them as independent contractors and denied them a minimum wage and overtime. The federal court hearing the case, however, threw it out because the movers filed too late. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the statute of limitations on federal minimum wage and overtime claims is two years — or three years, if willful. These plaintiffs filed well after the deadline had passed.

The plaintiffs didn’t go away quietly, however. Knowing they had missed the deadline, they first tried some creative arguments as to why the court should toll — or extend — their deadline to file.

First, they argued that they the moving company had tricked them into thinking they weren’t employees and had no FLSA rights, since the moving company told them they were independent contractors. Sorry, the court ruled. If that were an excuse, there would be no statute of limitations in misclassification cases. The deadline to file would get tolled every time, and that’s not gonna happen.

Second, they argued that the moving company failed to provide the required posters that notify employees of their rights. Again, no dice. Independent contractors aren’t entitled to employee notices, so if the company thought the workers were contractors, there obviously wouldn’t be notices. This too would apply in every misclassification case and cannot be grounds for tolling the filing deadline.

Finally, they argued that they were immigrants and shouldn’t be held responsible for not knowing the rights under US law. The judge wasn’t buying that one either. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially when the plaintiffs were basing their lawsuit on the very law they claimed to be ignorant of.

This case dealt with statutes not statues, and despite spellcheck’s frequent failure to see the difference, there is a difference. Anyway, the excuses by the statue guy and the movers were similarly unimpressive. The movers’ case was dismissed for failure to file within the statute of limitations, and the court never even considered whether the workers were actually misclassified.

Companies facing misclassification claims need to remember to review statutes of limitation. A claim filed too late is destined to fail, so long as the company raises that defense.

And I still can’t believe the New Zealand guy thought he could go unnoticed by holding really really still. I’d love to see the body cam footage from when the officers moved in and caught him. Swatting away the pigeons on his head probably gave him away.

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge