More than 67% of US marketers will use some form of social media influencer marketing this year, according to emarketer.com. While I can’t vouch for the numbers, I do believe that putting numbers in my attention-grabbing lede makes you want to keep reading and, besides, we all know it’s a lot so does the exact number really matter anyway?
While top social media influencers include Cristiano Ronaldo, Justin Bieber, and Ariana Grande, there are also niche social medial influencers with more targeted audiences, such as the gluten-free or plant-based foods crowd.
Whatever your social media marketing strategy, engaging a social media influencer involves legal risks. Some of these risks are pretty intuitive, such as laws relating to testimonials. You need to learn those rules and follow them. Other risks are a bit more hidden, and that’s where I come in.
While your relationship with a social media influencer is intended to be an independent contractor relationship, you need to avoid exerting so much control that you risk the influencer being deemed your employee. Yes, the Right to Control Test applies here too.
You need to protect your brand, and your contract with a social media influencer should do that. But where do you draw the line? You need to install guardrails to protect the integrity of your brand, but if you exert too much control, it’s possible to convert your social medial influencer to your employee, entirely by accident.
You can register here for free. 1.0 CLE credit is available.
Free Useless Tip: One surefire way to avoid independent contractor misclassification is to use a social media influencer that’s not human, and there are several. Dogs, cats, and even a South Korean avatar have all built loyal social media followings. In the webinar we’ll be focusing on the use of human influencers, but you’re welcome.
Sometimes injuries can be reasonably expected, sometimes not.
A good example of when injuries can be expected is the annual Bagwal festival in northern India. This year’s festival was described by Indian media as “a low-key affair” with only 77 of the 300 participants sustaining injuries. Wait, what?
At Bagwal, participants divide into four clans and hurl stones at each other to please a deity. According to this report, “The fight continues until a priest determines that enough blood has been shed in honor of the goddess Maa Barahi and demands to stop the fight.”
A good example of when injuries are not expected is when you retain an independent contractor to perform some sort of work on your property. Sometimes there are known hazards on the property. Sometimes there are no reasonable safety precautions that can be taken to minimize the hazard. For example, suppose you retain a contractor to fix a known safety risk.
The question: When an independent contractor gets injured by one of those known hazards, who is liable?
The California Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case with significant ramifications for business owners, property owners, and independent contractors.
The answer: The contractor is liable, not the property owner — but this assumes the contractor is properly classified as an independent contractor.
The rationale: Like in many states, California law presumes “that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety.” This doctrine, known in California as the Privette doctrine, means that a hirer is typically not responsible for injuries suffered by an independent contractor.
The Privette doctrine makes sense. It arose out based on four basic assumptions:
Hirers have no right to control an independent contractor’s work.
Contractors can factor in the cost of safety precautions and insurance in the contract price.
Contractors are able to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to cover any on-the-job injuries.
Contractors are typically hired for their expertise, which includes knowing how to perform the contracted work safely.
There are two exceptions:
A hirer may be liable when it exercises control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that control in a way that contributes to the injury.
A landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard.
In Gonzalez v. Mathis, the court was asked whether a third exception should be recognized when injuries “result from a known hazard on the premises where there were no reasonable safety precautions it could have adopted to avoid or minimize the hazard.”
The court declined to recognize this exception, holding that in this situation, the contractor is liable, not the hirer. Rules may vary in other states.
What should businesses do to protect themselves, in light of this ruling?
Make sure your contractors are properly classified as independent contractors under the applicable legal test. California uses an ABC Test for making this determination. Other California laws, such as Labor Code 2750.5 and 2810.3 complicate the analysis.
Make sure your contractors are licensed and insured. Licensing by the Contractors State Licensing Board is required in California for anyone who contracts to perform work on a project that is valued at $500 or more for combined labor and materials costs.
Do not exercise control over your contractors. Defer to their expertise.
Disclose known hazards, especially those that are not readily visible.
And if you’re looking for repair work to be done at or near a Bagwal festival, don’t forget warn your contractor about the risk of flying stones.
I had a great intro all ready for this week. I really did. WXYZ.com reported last week that Monica, a Detroit woman, took home a free puppy, only to learn days later that it was not a puppy at all, but a hyena.
I was about to share this great piece of investigative journalism with you when I was hit with this surprise: The woman’s story is now in doubt, and WXYZ has retracted the story. Thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can read the original story here and (to my great disappointment, because I so badly wanted this to be true) the retraction here.
Sometimes we are given something that seems wonderful — say, a puppy, or even a fun story about a woman who mistook a hyena for a puppy — but then it gets taken away. For all of you who were pleased with any NLRB pro-business decisions over the past four years, get ready to see those taken away too.
Last week new NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a Memo listing roughly 40 decisions and principles that she’d like to undo. She has a more diplomatic way of saying it — let’s just say we’ll “carefully examine” these. But expect many of these principles to be toast, now that the Board features a 3-2 Democratic majority.
You can see the full list here, but I’ll focus on three:
(1) “Cases involving the applicability of SuperShuttle DFW,” a case that made it easier to be classified as an independent contractor. You can read my post about SuperShuttlehere.
(2) “Cases involving the applicability of Velox Express,” a case in which the NLRB ruled that independent contractor misclassification, by itself, is not an automatic unfair labor practice. You can read my post about Velox Express here.
(3) “Cases involving the applicability of UPMC,” which relates to the standard for the Board to accept settlements voluntarily entered into by the parties. What she’s really talking about here is the McDonald’s franchise joint employer case, in which her predecessor as NLRB General Counsel settled a case against McDonald’s that she (and an Administrative Law Judge) didn’t think should have been settled. The NLRB eventually approved the settlement. Here is an amicus brief I wrote for the Restaurant Law Center in that case, arguing that the settlement should be approved.
The General Counsel for the NLRB is the equivalent of its chief prosecutor. These are Abruzzo’s priorities. With a sympathetic 3-2 majority on the Board, you can be sure that many of these desired changes will take place.
Like a good hyena story, the pro-business Board decisions from the last four years aren’t likely to last.
I just finished reading The Longest Day, the 1959 book by Cornelius Ryan that tells the story of the D-Day landing from Allied, French, and German perspectives. The book covers June 6, 1944 and the days leading up to it, but it doesn’t get into what happened next. To facilitate supply lines into Europe right after D-Day, the British built two artificial harbors off the Normandy coast. Mulberry Harbours A and B allowed for the transport of up to 7,000 tons of vehicles and supplies to the mainland each day.
A harbor is a place where ships can seek shelter from the open ocean. Switching our focus to peacetime and the law, a “safe harbor” is the legal term for a provision that protects against liability if you meet certain conditions. No ships are required. Know the required conditions, and you can find shelter from a legal storm.
Two states recently passed laws that create safe harbors against claims of independent contractor misclassification.
Businesses using independent contractors in West Virginia and Louisiana should update their contracts immediately to take advantage of these new statutes.
Each state’s law provides a list of conditions that, if met, will make someone an independent contractor, providing a safe harbor against claims that these workers are misclassified and should be employees. The LA law creates a presumption of contractor status; the WV law is conclusive.
One of the conditions in WV, for example, is that the written contract “states…that the person understands” a list of five specific facts. The contract needs to “state” these five things. The WV law has other requirements too.
The LA law requires that 6 of a possible 11 conditions are met to fall within the safe harbor.
Other states are considering similar laws. Missouri and North Carolina are considering similar bills. Oklahoma was headed down the same road during the last legislative section but has not yet passed a bill.
Businesses using independent contractors in these states should amend their agreements to take advantage of these safe harbor opportunities.
At a time when the federal government is pledging to crack down further on independent contractor misclassification, it’s important to have contracts that are built to withstand classification challenges by any governmental body. Even under federal law, which doesn’t have these safe harbors, these recitations can be helpful when trying to meet the Right to Control and Economic Realities Tests used in federal law and in most states.
Your agreements with independent contractors provide an opportunity to build your defense against claims of misclassification. They should not be treated as a mere formality.
You want to be able to point to your agreements as Exhibit 1 in your defense against a misclassification claim. Play offense, not defense. Adding the WV and LA clauses — and even the proposed NC and MO clauses — can go a long way toward protecting your independent contractor relationships.
You might not be into reading books about World War II and that’s ok. But please read your contracts carefully. Now is a great time to amend and improve independent contractor agreements.
No visit to Turkmenistan would be complete without a visit to the Darvaza Crater, more commonly known as the Door to Hell. This massive crater formed decades ago after a Soviet drilling rig collapsed. Roughly 40 years ago, the Soviets lit the crater on fire to burn off the methane. But Turkmenistan has some of the largest gas reserves in the world, which meant you couldn’t just make the gas go away.
The fire still burns today, and the massive fiery hole is an impressive sight.
A massive hole can also describe what the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) just created.
On July 29, the WHD formally announced the rescission of all of the regulations that define when joint employment exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
The regulations, which can be found in Part 791 of 29 C.F.R., have existed in some form since 1958, which is right around the tenth anniversary of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake that killed up to 10% of the entire population of Turkmenistan.
In 2020, the Trump Administration revised the regulations to provide more clarity about who is a joint employer and when. The 2020 regulations listed specific factors that should be applied. The new rule sought to create consistency in place of the patchwork of different factors used by different courts in different circuits. The 2020 regulations also included 11 helpful illustrations of how the new rules would be applied in various situations.
Pro-business groups liked the new rule because it provided clarity and made it harder to be a joint employer. Pro-employee groups hated the rule because it provided clarity and made it harder to be a joint employer.
In March 2021, the Biden Administration announced an intent to rescind the 2020 regulations. On July 29, the rescission was formally announced. The rescission takes effect September 28, 2021.
In the formal rescission notice, the WHD notes that few courts had followed the new test and that a federal district court in New York had ruled that the 2020 regulations were invalid. (That case is now on appeal to the Second Circuit.)
What does the rescission mean?
Welcome to Turkmenistan! The rescission doesn’t reinstitute the 1958 regulations. It doesn’t provide new regulations. Instead, it strikes all of Part 791 and leaves an empty hole.
The new guidance is that there is no guidance.
No kidding. Here’s what the notice says:
Effect of Rescission
Because this final rule adopts and finalizes the rescission of the Joint Employer Rule, part 791 is removed in its entirety and reserved. As stated in the NPRM, the Department will continue to consider legal and policy issues relating to FLSA joint employment before determining whether alternative regulatory or subregulatory guidance is appropriate.
The WHD notice reminds us that courts have set forth their own tests, and those tests can be followed.
So where does that leave us? What’s the rule? Well, it depends where you live. Really! Different courts apply different tests. But for the most part, they are similar.
In general, there are two types of joint employment – vertical and horizontal.
Vertical joint employment is when one employer, such as a staffing agency, provides workers for the benefit of a second entity. Joint employment under the FLSA means that both entities are legally responsible for ensuring that the workers are properly paid a minimum wage and overtime. Both are also jointly liable for any FLSA violations, even though the staffing agency likely has full control over payroll.
Based on court decisions, vertical joint employment will follow an Economic Realities Test, and joint employment will exist when “the economic realities show that the employee is economically dependent on, and thus employed by the other employer.” Multiple factors go into this analysis. These typically include:
Right to direct, control and supervise work;
Right to control employment conditions;
Permanency and duration of relationship;
Repetitive or rote nature of the work;
Whether the work is integral to the business;
Whether the work is performed on premises; and
Which entity performs the administrative functions characteristic of an employer (payroll, workers compensation, etc.)
Different courts articulate the test in different ways, but that’s a reasonable summary of the factors most commonly applied.
Any new interpretive guidance from the Biden WHD is almost certainly going to be that joint employment should be widespread and easy to establish.
Horizontal joint employment is when two businesses under common control employ the same individual. This issue arises when a worker spends 30 hours at Business 1 and 30 hours at Business 2. If the businesses are joint employers, then the worker is entitled to 20 hours of overtime for the combined 60 hours of work.
The 2020 regulations did not materially change the test for horizontal joint employment. The 1958 version of the regulations looked at whether the two entities were “completely disassociated” from each other. Courts typically look at common control and common management as evidence of horizontal joint employment. That is not likely to change, but that regulation’s gone too.
Will There Be New Regulations?
Maybe. It seems more likely to me that we’ll see a re-issuance of the 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation on Joint Employment. The 2016 AI adopted an expansive view of joint employment, finding that it’s fairly easy to establish. The 2016 AI was issued by David Weil, who ran the WHD under Obama. President Biden has nominated Weil to head the WHD in the current administration, so it would not be a surprise to see the 2016 AI or something similar re-issued.
Businesses should expect an expansive definition of joint employment, with little guidance or help from the WHD. With all regulations gone, and with different courts applying different tests, the landscape on joint employment resembles a massive crater filled with burning methane. It’s not a hospitable climate.
What Should Businesses Do?
Businesses should review their arrangements with vendors who provide labor and revisit those contracts and relationships. Steps can be taken to provide contractual protection against joint employment, even where the law will find a joint employment relationship.
This month I have been focused on summer clean up. We moved back into our house after six months of unintentional reconstruction, thanks to failed plumbing supply line on the second floor that created an impromptu shower and bath throughout the first floor of our house. Welcome home from vacation, late December 2020.
But now I’m back and getting organized. Cleaning house. Moving forward.
Late summer can also be a good time to clean house and eliminate unnecessary legal risks. With the White House about to release a new rule on joint employment, now is the time to review your staffing agency agreements.
You’ll want to check for these three things:
The Monster with Three Eyes. You need these three components to protect against joint employment claims, no matter what test applies.
A clause like this one, to allow you to remove unwanted workers without exerting the type of control that would make you their employer.
Awareness of FMLA risks. Know what to watch with temps-to-hire, and don’t forget about this often-overlooked rule.
In 18th Century Europe, common methods for trying to revive drowning victims included throwing the victim onto a trotting horse, dunking in freezing water (ironic?), and my personal favorite, blowing tobacco smoke into the rectum.
These were creative ideas and sometimes they actually worked. The bouncing motion from being on a trotting horse could force air in and out of the lungs, like modern CPR. Tobacco smoke contains nicotine, which causes the brain to release epinephrine, which helps to stimulate the heart to contract.
It’s fun now to look back at how people tried to solve problems when they didn’t know what would happen.
The biggest unknown in the world of independent contractor misclassification is what would happen if rideshare and delivery companies were forced to reclassify all drivers as employees. A well-funded startup in Dallas is attempting to find out.
As reported here, a new rideshare service called Alto just completed a $45 million round of Series B funding. Alto’s model is to use all W-2 drivers and company-owned vehicles. The service currently operates only in Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles, and has announced plans to switch to all-electric vehicles.
Will it work? Who knows.
Is it a viable business model? Who knows.
But in some ways, it’s a test case to see how an industry dominated by the independent contractor model might operate if forced to use all W2 workers. Yes, I know the taxi industry is another comparable. But it hasn’t exactly thrived since the emergence of rideshare. I’m pretty sure that’s not the model that rideshare would look to if force to pivot.
As the old proverb goes, necessity is the mother of invention. For those keeping score at home, Mothers of Invention was also the name of an experimental rock band in California once fronted by Frank Zappa and which featured tracks such as “My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama.” But that’s for another day.
For now, the rideshare industry continues to operate with its independent contractor model under siege. Widespread conversion of driver contractors to employees would be difficult and would introduce massive disruption in the industry. We’ll see what happens. In the meantime, let’s continue to innovate. Sometimes, even being thrown on a trotting horse can be helpful.
Crash Test Dummies is a band from Winnipeg that I really like — especially the 1993 album, God Shuffled His Feet. It’s full of thoughtful questions asked in a booming deep voice. The song In the Days of the Caveman takes a look back, with some keen observations added for good measure:
In the days of the caveman And mammoths and glaciers Bugs and trees were your food then No pajamas or doctors
See, that’s all true and probably not something you had thought about before.
President Biden has given us another reason to look back and reconsider some things you hadn’t thought about in a while. Last week, Biden nominated David Weil to serve as Wage and Hour Administrator. Weil served in the same role under Obama, so we’ve seen that movie too.
Here are some highlights from Weil’s last stint as W&H Administrator:
Administrator’s Interpretation 2016-1: Joint Employment under the FLSA, which I wrote about here when it was issued. Weil embraces the broadest possible view of joint employment. The Trump Administration’s DOL rescinded this guidance in 2017.
Administrator’s Interpretation 2015-1: Applying the FLSA’s “Suffer or Permit” Standard to Independent Contractor Classification, which I wrote about here. Weil advocates an expansive view of employment, declaring that “most workers are employees under the FLSA’s board definitions.”
Here’s what we can expect from Weil 2.0:
Increased enforcement activity by the DOL against companies using independent contractors.
Right now, claims generally arise through lawsuits, and class/collective actions present the most danger. The risk of class claims can be limited with arbitration agreements and class waivers. But arbitration agreements provide no defense against a DOL action. Those agreements don’t bind the government. Expect the DOL to go after companies that make extensive use of independent contractors.
Increased enforcement activity by the DOL on joint employment claims.
Remember, unlike independent contractor misclassification, joint employment is not illegal. Joint employment is a problem when a primary employer (such as a staffing agency or vendor/subcontractor) fails to comply with some aspect of the FLSA and its wage payment rules. Under a broad theory of joint employment, the company benefitting from the services is going to be liable for the errors of the primary employer, even though the alleged joint employer had no control over the primary employer’s wage practices.
New regulations on independent contractor classification and joint employment.
The standards and test keep changing, depending on who holds the White House. One step the Wage and Hour Division can take to try to make its views more permanent is to adopt its views as formal regulations, not just Administrator’s Interpretations. This is what the Trump DOL tried to do for both independent contractor misclassification and joint employment. Expect a strong push by the DOL to adopt new regulations that make it harder to maintain independent contractor status and easier to find joint employment.
The bottom line is that we’re going back in time. Maybe not so far back that bugs and trees were your food then, but back to 2015 and 2016 interpretations of the FLSA. Expect no pajamas or doctors.
What to do about it? Businesses that rely on independent contractors should tighten their agreements now. Businesses that engage staffing agencies should review those contracts now.
This is one of my favorite optical illusions. The spheres here are all beige. They are not red, green, or purple. Look closely and you’ll see. David Novick, a professor of engineering at UTEP, explains the illusion here.
It’s fun to be fooled with optical illusions. But it’s not fun to be fooled with federal immigration law.
Companies retaining independent contractors should remember these key points for I-9s and immigration law compliance:
1. Properly classified independent contractors do not need to complete I-9 forms.
2. Misclassified independent contractor — that is, those who are really employees under federal law — are employees and should have a completed I-9. A multi-factor test is used to make this determination. According to federal regulations, these factors should be considered:
Who supplies tools or materials;
Whether the worker makes services available to the general public;
Whether the worker works for a number of clients at the same time;
Worker’s opportunity for profit or loss as a result of labor or services provided;
Worker’s investment in facilities for work;
Who directs the order or sequence in which the work is to be done; and
Who determines the hours during which the work is to be done.
3. Federal law prohibits individuals or businesses from contracting with an independent contractor to provide services in the U.S., knowing that the contractor is not authorized to work in the U.S. [8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(4)]
4. Staffing agency temps employed by the staffing agency must complete I-9s as employees of the staffing agency. Contracts with staffing agencies should make clear the staffing agency accepts this obligation. If an agency sends a bunch of undocumented temps to your worksite, you might get an unscheduled visit from ICE, which is not a good look.
For those keeping a list at home (wait, that’s just me?), you can add immigration law noncompliance to the list of Things That Can Go Badly When Independent Contractors are Misclassified.
It’s all about branding, fellas. Republicans have introduced bills with clever acronyms before. Examples include:
JAWS Act (Justice Attributed to Wounded Sharks)
BEER Act (Brewers Excise and Economic Relief Act); and
EL CHAPO Act (Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order), to require El Chapo to forfeit assets from the drug trade.
But I’m puzzled by the more recent lack of effort.
Seeking to counter the Democrats’ boldly named PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize), Republicans have introduced the SLoB Act (Save Local Business).
Seriously? That’s the best that your marketing team could do?
The SLoB Act would narrow the definition of joint employment. To find “joint employer” status, proof would be required of direct, actual, immediate, and significant control over essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, pay, benefits, supervision, scheduling, and discipline.
That would be terrific for franchising and for all businesses that use outsourced labor, such as through staffing agencies. The SLoB Act would amend both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For those of you who recall the Browning-Ferris escapades, this bill would repeal the loosey-goosey joint employment standard the NLRB tried to adopt in 2015, later repealed, unrepealed, and appealed. The bill would codify a tougher test, making it much harder to prove joint employment.
The SLoB Act will not pass, at least not in this Congress. It is unlikely to have any Democratic support. But it has a letter of support signed by 65 leading industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, the National Franchise Association, and the Society for Human Resource Management.
I like the bill, but I’d have gone with a better acronym. Such as…
JERKY Act (Joint Employment is Really Kinda Yucky)
EJECT Act (Editing the Joint Employment Control Test)
JESUS Act (Joint Employment Should be Used Sparingly).
I think the last one would garner the most support, no matter what the bill was about. No one wants to go on record opposing Jesus.