There are quite a few songs about gals named Sue. There’s “Peggy Sue,” “Wake Up Little Susie,” “Susie Q,” and “Runaround Sue.” There’s a even a song about a “Boy Named Sue.” (The results of a recent survey consisting of me revealed that “Boy Named Sue” is by far the best of the Sue-themed songs.)
As far as I know, no one has yet written a song about Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su, but I would not be surprised if one of the unions in California wrote a ballad to applaud her work heading the state’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Maybe something like Fatboy Slim’s “Praise You.”
Su is Biden’s pick for Secretary of Labor, following the resignation of Marty Walsh, who left to lead the NHL player’s union. Her nomination is controversial, and businesses fear they’ll be singing the blues if she’s confirmed.
But in a recent Senate committee hearing, she provided at least two answers that businesses will like.
First, she said she would not advocate for an independent contractor test modeled after California’s AB 5. She testified that it’s her view (mine too, probably the courts’ too) that only Congress could adopt an ABC Test to determine worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That’s reassuring.
Second, she said that the DOL’s next regulatory agenda would not include a new joint employer test. The 2020 joint employer regulation adopted by the Trump DOL has been rescinded, and there has been no replacement regulation, which leaves a regulatory crater in the Code of Federal Regulations, where the joint employer rule used to be. Read more here.
On April 26, a Senate committee voted to advance Su’s nomination to the full Senate. All Democrats on the committee voted yes, and she received no Republican support. In a 51-49 Senate, the success of her nomination will likely depend on whether she can secure the support of Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Tester and whether Sen. Feinstein is healthy enough to vote.
And on that note, we turn back to Johnny Cash:
He said, “Now you just fought one heck of a fight And I know you hate me, and you got the right to kill me now And I wouldn’t blame you if you do But you ought to thank me, before I die For the gravel in ya gut and the spit in ya eye ‘Cause I’m the son of a bitch that named you Sue”
When I hear the name Lorena, my mind automatically goes back to 1993, which is probably true for many men about my age. That’s the year when Lorena Bobbitt brought a kitchen knife into the bedroom and cut off her husband John’s member while he was sleeping. She then tossed it in a field near the house, alerted police where to find it, and became an overnight celebrity for having taken revenge after years of alleged domestic abuse.
John later tried to cash in on the detachment, forming a band called The Severed Parts and appearing in two pornos called John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut and Frankenpenis.
It was a different Lorena who grabbed headlines last week, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether it’s unconstitutional to pass a law because of personal animus.
The law is California’s AB 5, and the Lorena is former California assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. As a quick refresher, AB 5 is the California law that imposed a hard-to-satisfy ABC Test for determining independent contractor status. Lorena Gonzalez, a driving force behind the bill, was vocal in her animus toward rideshare and delivery app companies.
In Olson v. California, the rideshare and delivery app companies sued to invalidate AB 5, arguing that the law contained dozens of exceptions targeted toward a grab bag of industries, and their exclusion from the list of exemptions was due to animus toward them, rather than reason.
This might have been a hard argument to make, but for Lorena. Congresswoman Gonzalez made frequent public statements against rideshare and delivery companies, claiming they mistreated workers by not classifying them as employees. Gonzalez said she was open to including exceptions in the bill, but not for these companies. The legislature then passed an exemption for other referral-based app businesses, but not rideshare or delivery, even though the business models are basically the same. A few other vocal lawmakers joined Gonzalez with similar public statements targeting the rideshare and delivery app companies. It’s the old familiar “[insert name] said the quiet part aloud” story.
Last week the Ninth Circuit ruled that personal animus is not a legit reason to pass a law. The Court wrote, “We are persuaded that these allegations plausibly state a claim that the ‘singling out’ of Plaintiffs effectuated by A.B. 5, as amended, fails to meet the relatively easy standard of rational basis review.” The Court was referring to the standard used for evaluating equal protection claims under the Constitution. It does not advance a governmental interest to pass a law out of a desire to harm a politically unpopular group of citizens.
The Court’s ruling did not overturn AB 5. The ruling sent the case back to the district court, which will have to reopen the case against AB 5.
For now the law remains in effect, and there is no immediate impact to businesses in California. But the fight to overturn AB 5 has fresh legs and some momentum.
In other words, businesses in California are still subject to the ABC Test — unless you’re a licensed insurance business or individual, physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, veterinarian, lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, accountant, registered securities broker-dealer or investment adviser, direct sales salesperson, commercial fisherman working on American vessels for a limited period, marketer, human resources administrator, travel agent, graphic designer, grant writer, fine artist, payment processing agent, still photographer or photo journalist, freelance writer, editor, or cartoonist, licensed esthetician, electrogist, manicurist, barber, cosmetologist, real estate licensee, repossession agent, recording artist, songwriter, lyricist, composer, proofer, manager of recording artists, record producer or director, musical engineer or mixer, vocalist, musician engaged in the creation of sound recording, photographer working on recording photo shoots or album covers, independent radio promoter, newspaper distributor working under contract with a newspaper publisher, newspaper carrier working under contract either with a newspaper publisher or newspaper distributor, contracting party in certain types of business-to-business relationships, or referral agency other than for rideshare or delivery — all of which are subject to possible exemptions.
And so you can see the point. The exemptions are a mishmosh created by special interests and lobbying efforts, with no coherent overall theme — except to make sure rideshare and delivery apps are subject to the ABC Test.
We’ll continue to follow this case. Meanwhile, if you’d like to read more about the original Lorena and the incident, there’s a Lifetime movie, an Amazon docuseries, and a whole bunch ofarticles.
If you have a beard at least 8 inches long, here’s an opportunity you might not have considered. At a bar in Casper, Wyoming, a group of bewhiskered patrons tied their beards together to take the world’s record for Longest Beard Chain.
How long? 150 feet, shattering the previous record of 62 feet, set by a shaggy German crew in 2007.
But that wasn’t even the hairiest highlight of the weekend. Down the street was the National Beard and Moustache Championships, a visual delight featuring moustache categories such as best handlebar, Dali, freestyle, and uber-stache, and partial beard categories including best friendly sideburns, goatee freestyle, musketeer, and Fu Manchu.
Meanwhile, 1,000 miles to the west, a different sort of hairy situation was nearing conclusion for several operators of gentleman’s clubs or nightclubs or strip joints, depending on your preferred terminology.
Last week, a federal district court in San Francisco approved a settlement that combined multiple class action claims of independent contractor misclassification brought by exotic dancers. The settlement covered more than 8,000 dancers and included a total payout of $6.5 million.
The cases were complicated by a number of legal issues, including the fact that — because of the timing of the lawsuit — the question of whether the dancers were contractors or employees was to be determined using different tests for different claims. The dancers’ classification for their California wage order claims would be determined using an ABC Test, but their classification under other Labor Code claims would be determined using the Borello balancing test, which is a California hybrid of Right to Control and Economic Realities Tests.
The class period covered 2010 through 2018, so the Dynamex decision applied to the wage claims, but AB5 had not yet been enacted, which left the Borello test to govern the Labor Code claims. This post explains the complicated situation that existed at the time. Had the class covered the period from January 2020 forward, the ABC Test likely would have been used to determine classification under all of the California claims.
But there were also Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims. The FLSA uses an Economic Realities Test to determine a worker’s classification, but that test is fluid too. The Economic Realities Test used by most courts is different from the test that was written into the current FLSA regulations in 2020, which is different from the test the DOL recently proposed to enact in a new set of regulations currently under consideration.
So for these class members, there were at least three different tests that would determine whether they were employees or independent contractors under different laws. That’s kind of like trying to determine who had the best musketeer or Fu Manchu but with everyone’s facial hair tied together in a 150-foot beard chain.
There are a few takeaways here for the rest of us.
First, misclassification claims by exotic dancers remain common. The business model needs some internal review. But that’s probably not your concern.
Second, the settlement is a good reminder of how complicated it can be to determine a worker’s classification when multiple laws apply. Different tests apply to different laws, even within the same state. The dancers, had they gone to trial, might have been employees under some laws and contractors under other laws.
Third, there are significant costs in reclassifying contractors to employees. The settlement required the clubs to reclassify their dancers to employees, which means the dancers would become eligible for unemployment, workers’ comp coverage, and protection under the anti-discrimination and leave laws that apply to employees.
Regardless of your business, it’s always a good idea to proactively review independent contractor relationships to see how well they would withstand a classification challenge in court. Misclassification cases are high stakes and can take many twists and turns. Sort of like the facial hair in the Full Beard Freestyle category. (Photos here.)
In Russia, a new variant on boxing involves chaining the two combatants to opposite sides of a podium, with one arm of each boxer immobilized. They then pound each other with the remaining good arm and, because they’re tied to the podium, they have nowhere to go.
The contests, called armboxing, last for three one minute rounds. If the fighters last two rounds, their arms are both freed up for round three, but the boxers remain chained to the podium.
Getting pummeled with nowhere to go is also a fair way to describe Uber’s most recent run-in with the New Jersey Department of Labor over unpaid unemployment contributions. The NJDOL claims that under the Strict ABC Test governing New Jersey unemployment law, rideshare drivers are employees, not independent contractors.
The NJDOL pursued Uber and a subsidiary for failing to pay into the state’s unemployment fund over a five-year period, 2014-2018.
Last week, the NJDOL announced a settlement with Uber to cover the unpaid assessments – for a cool $100 million. The amount was based on $78 million in unpaid contributions plus $22 million in interest. Uber has made the payment but did not concede there was any misclassification.
New Jersey uses a strict ABC Test to determine employee status for unemployment coverage, but uses a different version of the ABC Test for wage and hour law. The strict ABC Test used for unemployment law follows the same formula as the tests in Massachusetts and California. The danger in these tests, of course, lies in prong B, which requires that to be an independent contractor, the work being performed must be “outside the usual course” of the hiring party’s business.
State departments of labor are notoriously aggressive in pursuing misclassification, and courts often defer to their judgment, even if the facts could support independent contractor status. The NJDOL is among the most aggressive enforcers, as you might expect when its Labor Commissioner says this: “Let’s be clear: there is no reason temporary, or on-demand workers who work flexible hours, or even minutes at a time can’t be treated like other employees in New Jersey or any other state.”
For businesses using independent contractors, tools such as arbitration agreements with class action waivers can be effective in preventing class action litigation. But arbitration agreements can’t stop a state agency from conducting an audit and imposing its own penalties for noncompliance.
And that’s how Uber found itself tied to a podium with one arm immobilized as it got hit.
Businesses in states using strict ABC Tests need to be particularly careful when setting up their business plans, their contracts, and their external messaging. State audits can be random, or they can be initiated after a worker complaint.
Unemployment filings by independent contractors can be especially dangerous. State departments of labor will typically investigate those claims, assess whether the worker is misclassified and — most troubling of all — will find that if the one worker was misclassified, then all similarly situated workers were also misclassified. The state DOL may then issue back assessments based on its assumptions about how many workers are similarly situated and how many were therefore misclassified.
When an independent contractor files an unemployment claim, pay attention and be prepared to defend your classification decision. Merely denying that the worker was an employee may not be enough, and a full-fledged audit could follow. In a full-fledged audit, the stakes can be high, and it might not feel like a fair fight.
Be proactive, plan ahead, and don’t chain your business to a podium.
Zippy practices for the 13th Annual Lying Down Championships
Lying down in the face of a challenge is rarely a good strategy. I did, however, find one exception.
A man from Montenegro recently won the 12th Annual Lying Down Championships, beating out nine other competitors by remaining horizontal under a tree for 60 hours. As a reward for his (lack of) effort, he received 350 euros, lunch for two at a restaurant, a weekend stay at a local village, and a rafting trip.
Then things got weird. Local media reported that shortly after the competition, the winner was taken into police custody for (allegedly) physically attacking journalists and damaging the headquarters of a newspaper that called him “the biggest swindler in all of Montenegro.”
I suppose there’s a lesson in here somewhere: Offer a man an award and he’ll lie still for 60 hours, but call him a swindler and he won’t take that lying down.
But I digress. In this post, I want to share some tips gleaned from a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case involving prong C of the ABC Test. The case also serves as a reminder never to take a misclassification audit lying down.
The dispute involved East Bay, a drywall installation company that used independent contractor drywall installers for residential jobs. Until 2013, the company treated its installers as employees. It then switched to an independent contractor model. Risky move. This sparked an audit.
The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development wanted to know why this company, which was still active, suddenly lacked employees. The audit looked at the individuals who continued to install drywall and examined whether, under New Jersey’s ABC Test, they were independent contractors or employees.
You can guess what happened next. The Department found that 16 installers were misclassified, and it issued a hefty back assessment against the company for failing to pay into the state unemployment fund. The company appealed and lost.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion focused largely on what it takes to prove prong C of the ABC Test — that the individual “is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.” (You can read more about New Jersey’s ABC Test here, but otherwise I am going to assume that readers are familiar with the basic concept of the ABC Test.)
The drywall company put forth evidence that the independent contractors had registered business entities and certificates of insurance. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that wasn’t enough to satisfy prong C. This evidence wasn’t enough to prove that the individuals truly operated independently. Evidence in support of prong C should demonstrate that the independent contractor would not become unemployed if the work from this company went away.
The Court gave some examples of evidence that would have been more persuasive in satisfying prong C, including:
That the IC’s business will continue when this engagement ends;
That the IC’s business is stable and lasting, or other evidence of longevity;
That the IC has other customers;
That the IC has other sources of revenue, and the company being audited is not the primary source of income for the IC;
That the IC provides the tools, equipment, vehicles, and other resources needed to perform the work;
That the IC has telephone listings or business stationery;
That the IC advertises;
That the IC has its own employees;
That the IC maintains inventory;
That the IC bears the risk of loss;
That the IC benefits from the goodwill generated from a job well done;
That the IC is required to maintain educational and licensure requirements;
That the IC is permitted to obtain work from other businesses; and
That the IC in fact performs work for other businesses.
The court cited these as examples of the types of evidence that would have been helpful to prove prong C. This is not a mandatory list. The point here was just that business registrations and certificates of insurance were not enough. Strategically, there is other evidence that would be helpful too, and there are steps that can be taken when retaining ICs to help build a defense. I maintain a longer list but, hey, I can’t give away all the secrets here.
Other observations from the New Jersey Supreme Court decision:
1. How to invite an audit. Switching from an employee model to an independent contractor model is, by itself, enough to prompt an audit.
2. An ominous footnote about prong B. There was also a dispute in this case over the meaning of prong B. Remember, New Jersey has a standard ABC Test, which allows prong B to be satisfied by showing either the work is outside the hiring party’s usual course of business or the work is performed outside of the places of business of the hiring party. (This is different than the California version of the ABC Test.) All drywall installation work was performed at customers’ residences. After the audit, the Commissioner of Labor found (inexplicably) that prong B was not satisfied. It is unclear from the opinion whether that was based on a conclusion that the customers’ residences were East Bay’s places of business or was based on some other fact, such as some kind of work being done at East Bay’s place of business. If the Commissioner believed customer’s residences to be East Bay’s places of business, then it is hard to see how the latter part of prong B could ever be satisfied. But the NJ Supreme Court did not consider prong B in its decision. The Court ruled that prong C was not satisfied, and so it chose not to wade into the morass of prong B.
But there is an ominous footnote. When the Court declined to consider prong B, it noted that in its prior decisions, the place of business meant locations where the hiring party had a “physical plant or conducts an integral part of its business.” That’s consistent with common sense and would exclude a customer’s residence. The Court then, however, invited the Department of Labor to issue regulations explaining how the Department thinks prong B should be interpreted. Yikes!
3. You need to fight unemployment claims by ICs at the initial audit level; you can’t expect a court to save you on appeal. Courts will defer to the findings of an agency if its factual findings have any support in the record, no matter how flimsy. In other words, the agency can be wrong in its overall weighing of the factors, but a court is supposed to affirm the agency’s decision if there’s evidence to support it. Not “a preponderance of evidence” or “ample evidence” or even “sufficient evidence.” Just “evidence.” Folks, the reason we have trials is because there’s almost always at least some evidence on both sides, even if the preponderance of the evidence leans the other way. You shouldn’t have to pitch a shutout to win the game.
I have seen the same deference standard applied to unemployment decisions in New York and Ohio. The courts defer to the agencies. It is unfair. The result can be that the agency’s decision gets affirmed, even if it made the objectively wrong decision.
This unfair standard highlights how important it is to win at the earliest stages in an unemployment claim, if independent contractor status is being challenged. The initial investigation is your best chance to defend independent contractor status. If you wait, it’s too late. Provide the auditor your best evidence on every factor, and don’t hold back.
Remember the consequences too. If one contractor is misclassified, the agency will likely deem all other similarly situated contractors to be misclassified, and you’ll be on the hook for unpaid assessments for all of them. The stakes are high. Companies using independent contractors should spend the time and money to mount a full defense of their contractor’s status at the audit stage. It’s worth the investment, especially because the state courts will generally defer to the agency’s findings, even if the agency is wrong.
Here’s the ultimate takeaway: If you’ve entered a Lying Down Competition, it’s ok to lie down for as long as you want. But if you’re faced with a worker classification audit, or a 1099 audit, or an unemployment claim by a former independent contractor, do not take that lying down.
You need to fight hard in the audit, producing evidence to support independent contractor status. You’ll have the right to appeal if you lose, but don’t expect a fair chance to prove your case. You’ve got to do your best to win any classification dispute at the initial audit. That’s the time to retain counsel and invest time and resources. If you lose the audit and bring an appeal, you’re fighting a steep uphill climb.
This weekend we tried goat yoga. Highly recommended. It was a mix of basic yoga (my kind of yoga) to help get me stretched out, but held in a pen with goats who know no boundaries.
We then toured the farm, which featured llamas, long-haired pigs, guinea hens, a few obligatory dogs, and several varieties of goats, including the kind of fainting goats featured in that George Clooney movie.
Having to watch my back during yoga was something I signed up for and was part of the fun. Not so for California’s AB 5, which should be watching its back after what we saw at the Ninth Circuit last week.
The Ninth Circuit held oral argument in a case brought by Uber called Olson v State of California. Uber is arguing that AB 5 is unconstitutional.
While it’s hard to predict cases based on oral argument, the three judges on the panel seemed pretty sympathetic to Uber’s argument, which is that the statute arbitrarily picks winners and losers, i.e., the exemptions make no sense from an equal protection/due process standpoint.
Unlike the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, the California ABC Test codified in AB 5 (and later AB 2257) contains loads of exceptions. The statute says to use the ABC Test to determine employee vs independent contractor status for all workers — except for dozens of categories of workers and other situations.
Let’s not pretend. We all know this bill was written to target ride share and delivery app companies. The unfairness of making this law apply to everyone soon became apparent and led to the insertion of dozens of exceptions. If an exception applies, the Borello balancing test applies instead of the ABC Test.
The exceptions just about swallow the rule, and a law targeting a handful of companies presents constitutional problems. Or so the argument goes.
We can expect a decision in the next few months, and this is one to watch. Unlike me at goat yoga, imagining a decision that strikes down or severely limits AB 5 is not a big stretch.
This weekend we tried goat yoga. Highly recommended. It was a mix of basic yoga (my kind of yoga) to help get me stretched out, but held in a pen with goats who know no boundaries.
We then toured the farm, which featured llamas, long-haired pigs, guinea hens, a few obligatory dogs, and several varieties of goats, including the kind of fainting goats featured in that George Clooney movie.
Having to watch my back during yoga was something I signed up for and was part of the fun. Not so for California’s AB 5, which should be watching its back after what we saw at the Ninth Circuit last week.
The Ninth Circuit held oral argument in a case brought by Uber called Olson v State of California. Uber is arguing that AB 5 is unconstitutional.
While it’s hard to predict cases based on oral argument, the three judges on the panel seemed pretty sympathetic to Uber’s argument, which is that the statute arbitrarily picks winners and losers, i.e., the exemptions make no sense from an equal protection/due process standpoint.
Unlike the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, the California ABC Test codified in AB 5 (and later AB 2257) contains loads of exceptions. The statute says to use the ABC Test to determine employee vs independent contractor status for all workers — except for dozens of categories of workers and various other situations.
Let’s not pretend. We all know this bill was written to target ride share and delivery app companies. The unfairness of making this law apply to everyone soon became apparent and led to the insertion of dozens of exceptions. If an exception applies, the Borello balancing test applies instead of the ABC Test.
The exceptions just about swallow the rule, and a law targeting a handful of companies presents constitutional problems. Or so the argument goes.
We can expect a decision in the next few months, and this is one to watch. Unlike me at goat yoga, imagining a decision that strikes down or severely limits AB 5 is not a big stretch.
For businesses using independent contractor vendors, misclassification claims are usually well-suited for class certification. A plaintiff’s path toward certifying a class can be relatively smooth when all vendors of a particular kind are treated as contractors. The argument goes that if one is misclassified, all are misclassified.
But a new Ninth Circuit ruling may help businesses change the path toward class certification into a dead-end road.
Click here to read the rest of the post, originally published on BakerHostetler’s Employment Class Action Blog.
Have you heard? There’s a baby goat in Pakistan who may have set the world record for Longest Ears by a Goat. The ears are each 1.6 feet long. Which also means there’s category for Longest Ears by a Goat.
The goat, named Simba, reportedly trips on its ears, which are so long that they drag on the ground. That’s a problem, I hear.
I’m also hearing of a problem in Massachusetts, but it’s of a different sort entirely.
Efforts to add exceptions to Massachusetts’ ABC Test for independent contractor misclassification have been scuttled by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. A ballot measure modeled after California’s Prop 22* would have created exemptions to support independent contractor status for app-based rideshare and delivery drivers. The Court, however, ruled that the proposed ballot measure covered too many subjects and could not lawfully be placed on the ballot.
What does all this mean?
As many of you know, Massachusetts has the toughest test in the nation when it comes to classifying independent contractors. Under Massachusetts wage and hour law, a worker is deemed an employee unless —
A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and
B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and,
C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.
That’s a strict ABC Test, like California’s. But California’s ABC Test has a slew of exceptions, memorialized in AB 2257, formerly AB 5. The Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law has no exceptions, which makes Massachusetts a favorite venue for plaintiffs’ lawyers who like to bring misclassification cases.
With the ballot measure struck down, voters will not have an opportunity to pass a Prop 22-like bill in Massachusetts that would have allowed app-based rideshare and delivery drivers to maintain independent contractor status, so long as certain requirements were met.
States with ABC Tests continue to pose significant compliance risks for businesses that rely on independent contractors. It’s easy to trip and fall, regardless of the size of one’s goat ears.
*California’s Prop 22 is in limbo too. As explained here, a state court ruled the ballot measure unconstitutional. The issue is now on appeal.
I like long songs. For the last several weeks, I have been starting my workday with the Pink Floyd album Atom Heart Mother on my headphones. The opening track is 23 minutes, and the album ends with “Alan’s Psychedelic Breakfast,” a 13-minute journey that includes lines like “um, flakes” and “marmalade, I like marmalade.”
Long litigation, on the other hand – I’m not a fan. When I was an associate, I worked on a healthcare fraud case that lasted about 8 years. Not fun.
The legal team at Sleepy’s LLC probably doesn’t like long litigation either. Hargrove v. Sleepy’sLLC is an independent contractor misclassification case that was filed in 2010. The case has been to the Third Circuit twice already and went to the New Jersey Supreme Court on the certified question of what test should be used to determine employee status under New Jersey wage and hour law. I wrote about that 2015 ruling here in a post that also takes an admiring look at one menu option at an ice cream parlor in Dania Beach, Florida. (Partial spoiler: ABC Test. But you’ll have to read the post to see about the menu option.)
This case is back in the news after a new set of rulings.
After 12 years, the court issued a decision last week to grant class certification and to deny the defendant’s motions to dismiss. These are issues that are typically resolved in the first several months of a case.
The point here is to show you how long and complicated an independent contractor misclassification case can become. This is not straightforward litigation, and there are so many legal issues that can dominate the underlying dispute — questions, for example, about class certification, class size, jurisdiction, standing, and which legal test to use for deciding whether misclassification exists.
This case is a good reminder of the importance of getting your independent contractor arrangements reviewed and your contracts revised. Preventive steps taken now can help avoid lengthy litigation later. Lengthy litigation is no fun for anyone.
But I do like long songs, and if you pay close attention, you can appreciate the careful and elaborate construction of a track. Put on your headphones if you want to catch every subtle sound.
Who Is My Employee? 