11.06.23
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

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

What to do?

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

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

So what are businesses to do?

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

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

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

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

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.06.23
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

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

What to do?

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

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

So what are businesses to do?

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

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

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

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

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.29.23
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.23.23
by

It’s Not Lemon Juice: Here’s the One Key Ingredient Missing from Your Staffing Agency Agreements

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.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.16.23
by

Weighing Heavy: Rhode Island Makes Some Misclassification a Felony

Because of gravitational pull, topography, and geology, people apparently weigh a bit more when in Southern Illinois than in Ohio or Indiana.

For an adult human, the difference is only about .02 pounds, so relocation is probably not a viable weight loss strategy. But still. Who knew?

Meanwhile, in Rhode Island a new wage theft law is going to weigh heavily on some buysinesses, no matter what the gravitational pull might be in Providence.

Amendments to the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, effective 1.1.2024, drastically increase the penalties for independent contractor misclassification.

Outside of the construction industry, penalties for misclassification will include fines between $1,500 and $5,000 per misclassified employee. Complaints will result in an investigation and, if a violation is found, a lengthy new administrative process ensues that may result in referral to the state attorney general for criminal prosecution.

In the construction industry, independent contractor misclassification will now be a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison, if the violation (a) is knowing and willful, (b) is a second violation of the Rhode Island law, and (c) is valued at $1,500 or more. First violations, if knowing and willful, are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year of imprisonment, for violations valued at $1,500 or less. Violations may also result in a fine of up to $1,000, instead of or in addition to imprisonment.

The amendment contains a possible drafting error (using “and” instead of “or), creating ambiguity as to whether a first violation in the construction industry may be punishable as a felony if the offense is knowing and willful and results in an underpayment of more than $1,500. The questionably drafted section is 28-14-19.1(i)(2)(i).

“Construction industry” is defined broadly and includes remodeling, repairing, improving, and maintaining any building.

“Employer” is also defined broadly and includes “any agent” of the employing entity.

The standard for determining misclassification will be the same standard that applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That means an Economic Realities Test.

The amendments also impose criminal felony penalties for other selected wage and hour violations, if knowing and willful, including (a) failure to follow payday requirements, (b) failure to timely pay wages or accrued unused vacation upon termination, and (c) failure to timely pay an employee’s family wages due upon an employee’s death. Penalties for violations of these provisions include imprisonment for up to three years.

According to this article on SHRM.org, the Rhode Island Attorney General supported the amendments as providing enhanced tools and penalties for wage theft violations. The Attorney General seems particularly focused on going after independent contractor misclassification in the construction industry.

Businesses with employees and contractors in Rhode Island should review their current practices and double check for misclassification risks. The penalties for wage and hour violations in Rhode Island will be heavier than ever, starting in 2024.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.09.23
by

Guard Your ‘Stache: Massachusetts May Consider Its Own Version of Prop 22

This is the Moustache Guard.

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.

And that’s worth protecting.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.25.23
by

Odd Jobs and Not-So-Odd: Illinois to Enact New Freelancer Law

My Smart Home is book smart, not street smart.

It’s going to be hard to move my garage. I figure I’ll need at least four or five strong guys to help. My garage is heavy and seems pretty securely attached to the ground, so the work will be hard and I’m sure that I’d have to pay them at least $500 apiece.

But at least I don’t live in Illinois. Starting July 1, 2023, freelance labor will be governed by the Freelance Worker Protection Act (FWPA), another freelancer law similar to the ones in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Seattle, and Columbus Ohio.

Here’s what you need to know before retaining a solo independent contractor in Illinois:

When the Law Applies

  • Independent contractor who is a natural person (i.e., a human, not an entity)
  • Providing services in Illinois
  • Providing services for a person or entity in Illinois
  • Total value is $500+, including all work aggregated over 120 days

Exclusions

  • N/a to construction or subcontractors, as defined in the Illinois Employee Classification Act (construction industry)
  • N/a to employees, as defined by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act

Requirements

There must be a written contract that includes:

  • The name and contact information of both parties (including the hiring party’s mailing address);
  • An itemization of all products and services to be provided by the freelance worker;
  • The value of the products and services to be provided;
  • The rate and method of compensation;
  • The date when payment is due, which must be “no later than 30 days after the products or services are provided”; and
  • If the hiring party requires a list of products and services rendered in order to meet any payment processing deadlines (such as an invoice), the date by which the freelance worker must submit the list.
    (IDOL will provide model contracts)

Prohibitions

  • Once the IC “has commenced preparation of the product or performance of the services under the contract,” the hiring party cannot require, as a condition of timely payment, that the IC accept less compensation
  • Hiring party cannot threaten to withhold payment unless IC takes a lesser amount (no exception for unsatisfactory performance?)
  • Hiring party cannot do anything that would discourage the IC from exercising rights under the Act
  • No retaliation
  • Waivers are void against public policy (does that mean you can’t settle a dispute?)
  • If the contract failed to specify a due date for payment, the hiring party violates the Act if payment is made more than 30 days days “after the completion of the freelance worker’s services under the contract”

Record Keeping

  • Hiring party must retain a copy of the contract for two years

Enforcement

  • IC can file a civil lawsuit, or
  • IC can file an administrative complaint, which can lead to a broader investigation as to overall compliance

Penalties

  • For failure to timely pay: 2x amount owed, plus attorneys fees and costs
  • For failure to contract or to provide the contract: value of the contract or $500, whichever is greater
  • For discrimination or retaliation: value of contract, plus attorneys fees and costs

In addition, the IDOL may impose civil penalties up to $5000 for each violation, or $10,000 for each repeat violation within a five-year period, plus monetary damages to the state, restitution, and equitable relief, including injunctions.

Other Stuff

  • The law does not weigh in on whether the worker is misclassified
  • The Illinois DOL will issue regulations

Problems I See with the Law, as Written:

I see a few problems, and hopefully the IDOL will address these issues in its rulemaking.

First, suppose the IC’s work is unsatisfactory. Suppose the IC is slow or sloppy or rude or has terrible body odor. Suppose the IC does the work you requested but stomps all over your prized rose garden when walking in an out of the building. Suppose the IC comes into your home or business and breaks stuff or takes a cell phone picture of confidential information.

The law does not take into consideration all of the things that could warrant reduced or nonpayment, even if the products or services are ultimately provided. It seems that you’d still have to pay the value of the contract.

Second, the law seems to prohibit settlements. It says that any waiver of rights under this law is void as against public policy. It does say “except as otherwise provided by law,” so maybe a settlement would fall into that category.

Tips for Retaining ICs in Illinois after July 1, 2024

  • Consider including specifications or other requirements in the contract, to preserve an argument that the work is not yet completed or that the work was not performed as contractually agreed. (But don’t impose control over how the work is done, because that could lead to misclassification.)
  • Evaluate current use of individual ICs in Illinois, and consider whether this law will apply to those relationships.
  • Implement a Gatekeeper System like this, prohibiting managers from retaining ICs without going thorough an internal chokepoint for vetting. Managers who don’t know about the FWPA might retain ICs to get something done, creating liability for the company under the FWPA.
  • Look for the IDOL to release regulations that will hopefully provide clarity on the poor performance and settlement concerns.
  • Be careful about any IDOL investigation. If your business uses freelancers and the IDOL receives a complaint of a potential FWPA violation, the IDOL is likely conduct a thorough investigation that extends beyond the one complaining worker. With fines of $5,000 per occurrence, the penalties for noncompliance can get big in a hurry.

The scope of this law is broad. It applies to all “natural persons” (hey, no jokes about the weird guy down in the cubicle down the hall) who perform services for $500 or more. That would include your regular babysitter, your house cleaner, the guy you pay to wash the windows, solo consultants, or the guy you pay to assemble all the new modular furniture.

That would also include the guys I’m gonna need to pick up and move my garage.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.11.23
by

Did New York State Just Make Independent Contract Misclassification a Felony?

When Johnny Cash recorded At Folsom Prison in 1968, he has performing for an audience of arsonists, kidnappers, and killers. But the inmate audience probably didn’t include any independent contractor misclassifiers.

Fast forward to 2023. There’s a new sheriff in town, and you wouldn’t believe what might now qualify a person for prison time.

Under a new law signed by Governor Hochul last week, wage theft in New York State is now larceny. The law amends section 155 of the penal code (larceny).

Section 155 defines larceny:

  2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of
another`s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:

The definition then lists five subparts: (a) by embezzlement, (b) by taking lost property, (c) by issuing a bad check, (d) by false promise, or (e) by extortion.

Now there’s a subpart (f) “by wage theft.”

Wage theft is defined to include failing to pay overtime, if overtime is due, for work performed. That definition appears broad enough to include the failure to pay overtime because a worker was treated, incorrectly, as an independent contractor.

Larceny comes in different degrees, based on how much money is involved. The new law says that prosecutors can aggregate multiple instances of wage underpayment to one person into one count. It’s unclear to me whether underpayments to multiple people could be aggregated to create a higher degree of felony.

If the value of the property is up to $1,000, that’s petit larceny and a class A misdemeanor. But anything over $1,000 is grand larceny.

If the value of the property exceeds $1,000, that’s grand larceny in the 4th degree, which is a class E felony. More than $3,000 is 3rd degree grand larceny and a class D felony. More than $50,000 is 2nd degree grand larceny and a class C felony. More than $1,000,000 is 1st degree grand larceny and a class B felony.

These are serious crimes. Non-violent felonies can mean prison time. Conviction of a class E felony (for taking $1,001 to $3,000) can result in up to four years of prison time.

New York is not alone in seeking to classify wage theft as criminal conduct. Minnesota and Washington, D.C., are among other jurisdictions that have criminalized wage theft with laws that authorize jail time. California and Rhode Island are considering similar legislation. Rhode Island’s bill would criminalize the knowing misclassification of independent contractors as a felony.

Here’s a link to the new law in New York, created through two companion bills, A154A and S2832A.

Do I expect Riker’s Island to start filling up with accountants and corporate officers who misclassified independent contractors? Not exactly. But I do expect this new law to be used by the state as leverage.

Now that felony prosecutions are a new weapon in the enforcement arsenal, it would not surprise me to see the state threaten prosecution as leverage to force a company to settle disputes over whether independent contractors were misclassified. States can initiate proceedings through tax, unemployment, or workers compensation audits or as a result of worker complaints. Investigations can lead to findings of misclassification, along with hefty fines and back assessments, and companies naturally want to dispute these findings (sometimes causing my phone to ring).

Will the state use the threat of criminal prosecution to try to leverage settlements or capitulation? Yeah, probably.

This is a well-intentioned law because intentional wage theft from employees is obviously a bad thing. But the breadth of the law is a concern for companies that use independent contractors.

For those of you in New York City, there’s also the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, which imposes all sorts of contractual requirements when retaining solo independent contractors. Don’t forget about that.

There are lots of traps out there, and the dangers of misclassification keep growing.

I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
I got chains, chains around my feet
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
And them chains, them chains,
They’re about to drag me down.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
09.05.23
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.28.23
by

Who Pays for Reasonable Accommodations to Staffing Agency Workers? Ask Shorty.

Limb lengthening reasoable accommodation

[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.

2018_Web100Badge

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

Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!  

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