Category Archives: Uncategorized

09.20.18
by

Dept of Labor May Redefine Joint Employment with New Rule, Hints Labor Sec’y

DOL may issue new rule for joint employment

Rules are important for avoiding chaos, as I am reminded daily by one of my favorite twitter accounts, @CrimeADay. That’s where I learned that it’s a federal crime to operate a manned (or unmanned) submersible in national park waters without a permit, thereby ruining my weekend plans. (18 USC 1865 & 36 CFR 3.19). I also learned it is a federal crime to bring a child to a cockfight before his or her 16th birthday, thereby ruining my winter plans for father-daughter bonding activities. (7 USC §2156(a)(2)(B) & 18 USC §49(c).)

The Department of Labor (DOL) thinks rules are important too. Taking a page from the NLRB, which last week issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to redefine “joint employment” under federal labor law, the DOL may be about to follow suit.

In a speech to members of the American Hotel & Lodging Association and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta disclosed that the DOL is working on a proposal to redefine joint employment, presumably under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires the payment of overtime and a minimum wage.

Joint employment is a hot button issue in the hospitality business, where outsourcing functions like housekeeping is commonplace, and where joint employment can mean the hotel operator is liable for for wage and hour violations by other entities who are supplying labor.

As we have discussed in previous posts, the tests for joint employment are different depending on which law is being applied. That means that even if the NLRB revises the definition of joint employment, that new test would not apply to the FLSA. The DOL would need to write a separate rule that would define joint employment under the FLSA.

According to Acosta, that new rule may soon be on the way.

Until then, remember that it is illegal to take a fishing boat into the danger zone of the Potomac near the Naval Surface Warfare Center while they’re firing guns, aerial bombing, using directed energy, or other hazardous operations, unless the patrol boats let you in. (33 USC §3 & 33 CFR §334.230(a)(2).)

Thanks, @CrimeADay!

© 2018 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.

 

09.17.18
by

NLRB Proposes New Definition of Joint Employer; 60-Day Comment Period Starts Now

NLRB logoWhen seeking musical inspiration for a post on the NLRB’s joint employment standard, look no further than the Barenaked Ladies’ 1994 album, Maybe You Should Drive. Like an on-again, off-again relationship, the Board keeps changing its joint employment standard. Between 2015 and today, the test has been, at various times:

  • Direct control (pre-Browning-Ferris, 1984-2015),
  • Indirect control (Browning-Ferris, 2015-Dec. 2017),
  • Direct control (Hy-Brand overrules Browning-Ferris, Dec. 2017-Feb. 2018), and
  • Indirect control (Board vacates Hy-Brand, restoring Browning-Ferris, Feb 2018-present).

But with this newest change coming in the form of a proposed regulation, the proposed change can be expected, once it’s enacted, to remain in effect long term.

Cue the Barenaked Ladies, in “Everything Old Is New Again” (1994):

Everything old is new again, everything under the sun.

Now that I’m back with you again,

We hug and we kiss, we sit and make lists,

We drink and I bandage your wrists.

The proposed new standard would make it much more difficult to establish that a business is a joint employer.

The new test will help franchisors, who need to protect their brand and marks, but do not exercise day-to-day control over hiring and scheduling of a franchise owner’s employees. The new test will help businesses that subcontract labor and that want to ensure certain tasks are performed but do not exercise day-to-day control over how the work is performed or over how subcontractor hires, schedules, and supervises its employees.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released late last week, the NLRB proposes a new regulation to interpret the National Labor Relations Act. New 29 CFR §103.40,which would define joint employer.

Under the proposed regulation, an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. A putative joint employer must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment in a manner that is not limited and routine.

There’s a lot packed into that definition:

  • The proposed joint employer must share or codetermine the workers’ terms and conditions of  employment;
  • These terms have to be essential terms of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction;
  • It is not enough to have the right to control these terms; the proposed joint employer must actually exercise this control;
  • The control must be direct, substantial, and immediate; and
  • It is not sufficient to exert control that is limited and routine.

“Limited and routine” control means directing another business’s employees as to what work to perform, or where and when to perform it. Under the new rule, that will not be enough to show joint employment. Control that is not “limited and routine” would include providing direction on how to do the work — in other words, supervision.

For those of you asking, “So what? Who cares?” (my parents, for example), here’s why the change matters.

Under the new rule, a business that retains another company to perform work but has no control over that company’s hiring, compensation, scheduling, or supervision:

  • Will no longer be obligated to collectively bargain with that other company’s unionized workers;
  • Will no longer be held jointly liable for that other company’s unfair labor practices; and
  • Will no longer be drawn into collective bargaining or unfair labor practice disputes with that other company’s employees.

It’s a big deal. Unions won’t like it since the new rule will reduce their influence, but the new rule is a common sense, pro-business proposal that will add predictability and certainty to economic and legal relationships.

So what’s next?

There is a now a 60-day period for comment. The Board will then have the opportunity to consider the comments and revise or reject the proposed rule.  The soonest the rule can be implemented is late 2018 but more likely early 2019.

Then, assuming the rule is implemented, we go back to the standard that existed before Browning-Ferris, but with a lot more clarity and permanence. Everything old is new again. But this time, the change should be long-term since it will be memorialized in a  federal regulation.

© 2018 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.

 

09.13.18
by

Loss of Control? New Trademark Bill Would Help Franchisors to Reduce Joint Employment Risks

C52476FF-F79A-4A4C-A1B2-5C359ADBCBB9

The Van Halen song, “Loss of Control,” supposedly is intended to poke fun at the punk rock scene, turning everything up to high volume and high frequency. It is not a song to fall asleep to. If the lyrics took more than ten minutes to write, I’d be as surprised and disappointed as if I found a brown M&M in the Van Halen dressing room.

The lyrics consist of a few basic lines and then repeating the phrase “Loss of Control” over and over and over again at high speed. A copy of David Lee Roth’s handwritten lyrics can be found here.

Franchisors constantly struggle with how much control they can exert over their business model and over franchisees without becoming a joint employer of the franchisee’s employees. On one hand, they need brand consistency to project an image to the public and to ensure that a reliable product or service is being offered, regardless of franchise location. On the other hand, day-to-day decisions like hiring and scheduling should be left to the individual franchise owner.

One area where franchisors absolutely must exert control is over their trademarks. They need to ensure that their marks are used consistently and appropriately and that individual franchise owners don’t use the marks in unapproved ways.

A new bill introduced in Congress aims to help franchisors protect their marks in a way that does not increase the risk of a joint employment finding.

The proposed Trademark Licensing Protection Act has bipartisan support, having been co-introduced by House Small Business Committee Chairman Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX).

If passed, it would declare that when a mark is licensed to a related company (such as a franchisee), any control exerted over that mark “for the purpose of preserving the goodwill, reputation, uniformity, or expectation of the public of the nature and quality of goods or services associated with the mark” would not be evidence of an employer-employee relationship or of joint employment.

This clarification would be helpful to the franchise industry. Franchisors are under constant attack with claims of joint employment. This bill would help protect them against joint employment claims while helping them to avoid a loss of control.

© 2018 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.

09.10.18
by

“Maybe Later”: California Legislature Declines Business Community’s Request to Fix ABC Test

California ABC Test legiuslative efforts fail 2018

Peter Gabriel’s 1986 album, So, includes the song “Don’t Give Up.” It is a mournful duet with Kate Bush that must not be included on anyone’s workout playlist. The blend of an inspirational title and weepy output, though, seems appropriate for this post.

Today we’re following up on the state of independent contractor misclassification in California, five months after the Dynamex decision and its contractor-hatin’ ABC Test.

This summer, in response to Dynamex, California businesses that rely on independent contractor gig workers engaged in a coordinated effort to persuade the California legislature to suspend the Dynamex ruling and to reinstate a common sense balancing test for determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee.

For now, they have failed.

California’s 2018 legislative session just ended. The Democratically controlled Assembly and Senate declined to consider any legislation that would affect the Dynamex ruling and its new ABC Test.

In a recent interview with California’s Capital Public Radio, three weeks before the legislative session closed, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon admitted that he is a much weaker hitter than the Washington Nationals third baseman who shares his name and has 19 more home runs this year than the Speaker. (Actual quote unavailable.) But, more relevant to this post, Rendon also said that there would be no action this year on legislation to define Who Is My Employee?

“Ultimately, this decision is about the future of the way work looks. And that requires us to be thoughtful and deliberate,“ Rendon said. “And there’s no way we can be thoughtful and deliberate in three weeks.”

Senate President pro tem Toni Atkins, who may or may not have been in the late-80s-early-90s soul/R&B group Tony! Toni! Toné!, expressed similar sentiments: “The California Supreme Court voted unanimously for this new test. I agree with Speaker Rendon that forging any legislative review or response to their decision in just three weeks isn’t workable.”

Let’s break that down.

When my oldest daughter was little and didn’t want to do something, she developed a polite way of saying “no f-ing way.”  She’d say, “Maybe later.”  We all knew what that meant.

I am hearing the same thing from Rendon and Atkins when they say that three weeks wasn’t enough time to draft new legislation. All they had to do was reinstate the status quo before Dynamex, which was a well-established balancing test for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

But instead they gave us the legislative equivalent of “maybe later.” I won’t be putting that on my workout playlist either. And it’s not gonna get worked out any time soon. The ABC Test in California is here to stay. (Cue weepy mournful background music.)

© 2018 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.

 

09.04.18
by

Arbitration Agreements Can Prevent Discovery of Other Class Members

McGrew independent contractor collective action sixth circuit court of appeals

An old Canadian poem called “The Shooting of Dan McGrew” tells the tale of a Yukon Gold Rush prospector (McGrew), his sweetheart “Lou,” and a stranger who buys drinks for everyone in the saloon, plays a sad song on the piano, then shoots McGrew, who also shoots the stranger, and everyone dies except Lou, who gets McGrew’s gold. You can read a summary here.

This post is about a different McGrew, who doesn’t get any gold.

This McGrew is an exotic dancer in Kentucky. She filed a lawsuit alleging independent contractor misclassification, an issue that was mildly less prevalent during the Yukon Gold Rush. Melissa McGrew had an arbitration agreement but filed a lawsuit anyway, trying at least to get the court to grant conditional certification and require all potential class members to be notified of the lawsuit and their opportunity to bring claims.

No way, said the district court; and no way said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, guided by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Epic Systems case, ruled that because arbitration agreements are enforceable, a plaintiff can’t first try to take advantage of collective action notice procedures in court. Arbitration means no court, which means no collective action notice procedures.

This is not a surprising ruling, but it’s an important reminder of another benefit to businesses of arbitration agreements with class action waivers.

Not only can businesses prevent class action litigation, but they can also prevent the procedures that would result in notifying all potential class members.

In this case, McGrew got no gold, and her lawyers got no list.

© 2018 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.

 

08.30.18
by

Beware of Classwide Arbitration: Instacart Case Might Allow It

Instacart arbitration decision allowing class actions

Did that photo make you want to eat a pumpkin right now? (Probably not.)

🍿🍩🍰🍦🍨 Do these emojis make you hungry?

Does this one 🍺 make you wish the workday was over?

Fortunately for those who like instant gratification, driving services like Instacart promise to connect you with contractors who will go grocery shopping for you and will deliver the bounty to your house. This is not an ad for Instacart, though. This is a post about arbitration.

You see, like many other delivery app companies, Instacart’s drivers are independent contractors. Also like many other delivery app companies, Instacart gets sued for independent contractor misclassification. Wisely, Instacart has all contractors sign arbitration agreements.

One of the most significant benefits of arbitration agreements for companies is the opportunity to insert a clause that waives the right to bring any class/collective action claims. All claims must be brought individually — but only if that waiver language is clearly stated in the contract.

Instacart may have had an Oops!

In a pending case alleging independent contractor misclassification, the arbitrator has ruled (preliminarily) that the driver bringing the claim may bring a class/collective action. Instacart said, Whahhh?, and asked a California court to intervene and to rule that the arbitrator was overstepping his authority.

Arbitrators, though, are pretty well insulated from court review. That’s usually a plus, but it can also be a minus. For Instacart, it’s a minus here.

The California court ruled that it has no jurisdiction to intervene. It cannot review that preliminary decision by an arbitrator. Rather, a court can only review an arbitrator’s decision under very limited circumstances, mainly only after there has been an “award.” Instacart appealed but fared no better. The California Court of Appeals agreed.

The Court of Appeals, like the court below, ruled that the arbitrator’s decision to allow class arbitration is not an “award,” and the court cannot intervene. The arbitration must continue under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Only when the case is done will the court take a look.

This decision should serve as a reminder of two important points:

  1. In arbitration agreements with independent contractors, it is important to include a carefully drafted clause that waives the right to file or participate in a class or collective action. The clause should also state that the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to consider a class or collective action. These clauses need to be unambiguous.
  2. When parties agree to arbitrate, the arbitrator has a lot of power, and the preliminary rulings of an arbitrator are generally not subject to court review (except in limited circumstances). When you choose arbitration, you’re all in.

The case is in its very early stages, so we’ll see what happens. But there are some early lessons to be learned here. Congratulations. You made it to the end of the post. Now you can go eat.

© 2018 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.

 

08.27.18
by

Will New Bill Finally Allow Independent Contractors to Receive “Employee” Benefits?

Employee benefits for independent contractors

In 1983, Journey released the album Frontiers which, as you all know, is not as good as Escape but way better than Raised on Radio. The third song on Frontiers is After the Fall (youtube 80s refresher here), not to be confused with the later-formed Australian rock band, After the Fall (which is not to be confused with the much earlier British post-punk band The Fall, which came before After the Fall, but I digress). The Australian band, After the Fall, featured a drummer named Mark Warner, not to be confused with the Democratic Senator from Virginia, who, incidentally, is not related to John Warner, who was also once a Senator from Virginia.

Mark Warner the Senator recently introduced a bill that relates to the subject of this blog, and so for that, I am grateful, especially since it allowed me to mention the album Escape, which I really liked very much.

Sen. Warner has been trying for some time to gain traction on a bill that would promote portable employee benefits for gig workers. I am solidly behind this idea, as it would provide much more flexibility for independent contractors to carve out their own career paths without forfeiting employee benefits. I never understood why we tie health insurance to employment in this country, but that’s for another day.

Warner’s bill has never gone anywhere but, to his credit, he is trying again.

Last week, he introduced an amendment to a massive appropriations package. The amendment would set up a system to award grants for state and local governments and non-profits. The grants would support the creation of programs to allow portable benefits for gig workers, including health insurance, workers compensation, disability coverage, and retirement savings plans.

I hope the program succeeds. The current legal framework, which recognizes independent contractors and employees but no third option, is not consistent with how the modern gig economy works. If benefits can be de-coupled from employment, as they should be, we may eventually see a 21st century system that allows gig workers to receive insurance, workers comp, and other protections, without having to be reclassified as employees.

Thank you, Sen. Warner. I won’t stop believin.

© 2018 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.

 

08.20.18
by

When Is a Referral Service an Employer?

Hamburger

Retired prison guard Don Gorske claims to have eaten two McDonald’s Big Macs every day for the past 46 years. That’s 30,000 Big Macs.  If you are looking to hire a retired prison guard whose arteries laugh at the common man’s battle with cholesterol, Don is your man.

Referral services are business that serve as matchmakers. They could find you someone like Don if that’s what your company needs.

But when are referral services considered employers (or joint employers) of the workers they place? That is the question explored in a recent Bulletin posted by the Wage & Hour Division of the DOL.

The Bulletin looks specifically at home health care registries, but the analysis and factors should be applicable when trying to answer this question for any business whose primary service is matchmaking for workers.

Unlike home health care agencies, registries don’t provide actual home healthcare services. they just find qualified providers and match them with individuals in need, who then presumably become the caregivers’ employers.

Under federal wage and hour law (the Fair Labor Standards Act), an Economic Realities Test is used to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists.

In the context of health care referral services, here are the factors that the WHD says are most relevant:

  1. Background Checks & References. Objective data collection does not suggest employment, but interviews that result in subjective judgments and recommendations may suggest an employment relationship.
  2. Hire and Fire. Hiring and firing are suggestive of employment. A referral service should be introducing candidates, not making hiring decisions.
  3. Scheduling and Assigning Work. Also indicative of employment. A referral service should not be involved in this.
  4. Controlling Caregiver’s Work. Control suggests employment. A matchmaker should not be involved in the actual work being performed.
  5. Setting Pay Rate. This is up to the employer (the individual) and the employee. A referral agency should not be setting pay rates.
  6. Receiving Continuous Payment for Services (Instead of Fee-Based). When the a registry receives a referral fee, that does not suggest an employment relationship. But if the agency’s pay varies by the number of hours worked by the caregiver, an argument can be made that the worker’s pay is affected by the hours worked and the cut given to the agency, which may weigh in favor of an employment relationship. This seems like a minor factor though.
  7. Paying Wages. If the registry pays the caregiver’s wages, that weighs in favor of an employment relationship.
  8. Tracking Hours. The employer, not the agency, should be responsible for tracking hours in compliance with worker pay and recordkeeping requirements.
  9. Purchasing Equipment and Supplies. The caregiver or the recipient should be doing this, not the agency.

As long as we’re talking health care, I’m going to limit my Big Mac intake to under two a day. Not that I’m judging, Don.

© 2018 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.

 

08.16.18
by

When Are Shareholders Also Employees? (Disney-Themed Version)

When are shareholders considered employees

I have always believed that in the song made famous by Happy, Dopey, Sneezy and friends, they were saying “Off to work we go,” but I just checked a few sites for lyrics and the lyrics all show the dwarves singing, “It’s home from work we go.” Can this be true? Have I been mixed up all these years about which way the dwarves were going to dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick?

Work can be confusing. A non-cartoon-dwarf scenario that can be confusing is trying to determine whether shareholders in a business are also employees of that business. In today’s post, we examine that question by celebrating the 15th anniversary of a 2003 Supreme Court case. (Happy Anniversary, case! 🎂)

Like many tests for determining Who Is My Employee?, this one comes down to control and the familiar Right to Control Test.

In Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, an employee of this Oregon-based medical clinic tried to sue for disability discrimination under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To bring claim under the ADA, though, the plaintiff must show that her employer has 15 or more employees.

The clinic had four owner/shareholders who were also physicians. If they were also employees, then the clinic had 15 employees and Ms. Wells could pursue her ADA lawsuit. If these physicians were just shareholders and not employees, then the clinic had fewer than 15, and Ms. Wells would be SOL.

The dispute made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the proper way to determine whether the physician/shareholders counted as employees was to apply a Right to Control Test. But which version?

The standard Right to Control Test tries to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. Because the question here is a bit different, the test had to be adapted to fit the situation.

The Court decided that these six factors were most important for deciding whether the physician/shareholders were also employees:

1. Whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set the rules and regulations of the individual’s work;
2. Whether and, if so, to what extent the organization supervises the individual’s work;
3. Whether the individual reports to someone higher in the organization;
4. Whether and, if so, to what extent the individual is able to influence the organization;
5. Whether the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written agreements or contracts; and
6. Whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.

Like the traditional Right to Control Test, this is a balancing test. Some factors may weigh in one direction, some may tilt the other way. Ultimately, a judge (or jury) needs to weigh the factors and make a determination.

In this case, the Supreme Court did not do the weighing. Instead, it articulated the test and sent the case back to the Oregon district court to weigh the factors.

So for Ms. Wells, the case left the Supreme Court and went back to the federal court in Oregon. And so the real question is: For Ms. Wells after the Supreme Court’s ruling, was it “off to court we go” (headed back to Oregon) or “home from court we go” (leaving D.C.)? I bet she never thought about that.

© 2018 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.

08.13.18
by

NYC to Cap Number of Uber, Lyft Drivers

Traffic uber lyft NYC law suspect TLC license

In the Jimi Hendrix song, Crosstown Traffic, Jimi plays a nifty little riff with a makeshift kazoo constructed from a comb and tissue paper. The lyrics compare trying to get through to his lady friend with trying to get through Manhattan’s cross-town traffic, which was already bad in 1967. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

News Alert: New York City Has Bad Traffic!

So whose fault is that?

In a gut punch to the gig economy, New York City just passed an ordinance that will place a one-year ban on granting new licenses for ride hailing vehicles.

To drive using Uber or Lyft in NYC, you need a license from the Taxi and Limousine Commission (a different kind of TLC). During this one-year suspension period, the city will conduct a study on traffic and congestion and will examine driver compensation.

According to this Wall Street Journal article and nifty graph, since the emergence of Uber and Lyft as ride-share options, the value of NYC taxi medallions has plummetted from about $1 million to roughly $200,000; and since 2015, the number of TLC-licensed drivers (cabs and ride-sharing services) has more than doubled. The City points to increased congestion as the reason to suspend the issuance of new TLC licenses for a year.

The ride-share companies argue that the cap will limit the number of available drivers in outer boroughs, increasing New Yorkers’ wait times.

Is the City’s motivation really to address traffic congestion? Or is the idea instead intended to help the struggling taxi industry? Hmmmm.

Under the new law, licenses that have already been granted are not being taken away.

In case you were interested (or even if you are not), here are the general requirements for obtaining a license from TLC if you want to drive. [Uber, Lyft]

But for the next 12 months, the application process will be “just like crosstown traffic,
So hard to get through to you.”

© 2018 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.