How Can There Be Misclassification When The Worker Prefers to Be an Independent Contractor?

Alan Hudock

Photo of Singer Dave Mason (We Just Disagree), by Alan Hurtock

Let’s start with this: Everyone is happy being an independent contractor until they’re not.

What do I mean by that? Right now, the relationship works. The contractor performs, and you pay for the work.

But what happens when things go south? As soon as you decide you no longer need those services, the contractor might stop being your BFF.

A disgruntled former contractor has some options, all of which involve some variation of this story: “Once upon a time, I was misclassified and should have been an employee.” None of the former contractor’s possible next steps are good for you: Continue reading

Four Ways to Give Up Control and Protect Independent Contractor Status

run

Retaining control over how independent contractors do their work can sink an otherwise legitimate independent contractor relationship.

Fortunately, steps can almost always be taken to give up aspects of control that do not hurt the business case for using a contractor instead of an employee. Companies need to be thoughtful and proactive, though, in evaluating and modifying these relationships — before they are challenged in a misclassification claim.

Here are four aspects of control you may be able to relinquish in your relationships with independent contractors: Continue reading

Avoid this Common But Disastrous Mistake in Staffing Agency Agreements

staffing services mistake-1966448_1920

A client once asked me to review the Employment Agreement of a candidate they were considering hiring. The candidate had recently been terminated but his Employment Agreement contained a 12-month non-compete, and my client’s job offer seemed pretty clearly to be for a competing job.

But the terminating employer made once huge mistake. When it meant to terminate employment, instead it terminated the agreement … and with it, the non-compete.  Oops!

I see the same mistake in Staffing Agreements and Professional Services Agreements all the time.

These agreement are usually intended to serve as Master Service Agreements (MSA), with additional work orders to govern the actual services to be provided. These MSAs contain very important clauses that are intended to survive, even after the services have stopped. Examples of clauses intended to survive the termination of services include indemnification, insurance coverage, preservation of confidential information, and right to audit.

The mistake I see over and over, however, is the inclusion of a termination clause that allows for termination of the agreement, not merely termination of services.

Continue reading

Contractors Gone Wild! Are You Covered?

independent contractor vs. employee thieves-2012538_1280When an employee embezzles money, a company may look for insurance coverage under a crime policy, for employee theft. When an independent contractor steals money, a general commercial liability may cover the loss. But when an independent contractor acts like an employee, performs services typical of an employee, then steals money — neither coverage may apply.

That’s the harsh lesson recently learned by an Indiana company. Telamon Corporation retained an independent contractor to provide services through a series of consulting agreements. Eventually, the company made her a Vice President (please don’t name your independent contractors “Vice Presidents,” then claim they are not employees!) and put her in charge of recovering old telecommunications equipment to sell it to salvagers. She had other ideas, however. She recovered the equipment and sold it to salvagers, but she kept the money for herself. $5.2 million of it.

That eventually landed her in prison, where she won free use of an orange jumpsuit for five years. I know, she could have afforded a blinged-out $5 million jumpsuit, but she took the free one from the state.

Telamon, meanwhile, tapped its insurers to try to recover the cash.

Continue reading

Joint Employment Tests Are All Wrong, Says Federal Appeals Court

Fourth Circuit Adopts More Liberal Joint Employment Test Than NLRB’s Browning-Ferris Decision

IMG_1045(This article originally appeared in Corporate Counsel on March 1, 2017. Click here to view the original.)

Are 59 years of joint employment rulings all wrong? Yes, says a federal appeals court in a landmark Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decision issued in late January.

Relying on a 1958 Department of Labor (DOL) regulation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has rewritten the test for joint employment, defining the concept so expansively that every outsourced and staffing agency relationship might be deemed joint employment under the FLSA. The decision in Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, issued unanimously by a three-judge panel (all Obama appointees), takes a more radical position on joint employment than even the NLRB took in its controversial 2015 Browning-Ferris decision.

The Court of Appeals concludes that everybody – including the DOL itself – has been misinterpreting the DOL’s joint employment regulation for 59 years.

Is that possible? Can the Court literally mean that? Or is this an example of the adage, “bad facts make bad law”? The facts in Salinas suggest there was probably a joint employment relationship under any test. It remains to be seen how this test will be applied and whether decades of court decisions and DOL guidance will truly be disregarded.

Meanwhile, employers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia are immediately and directly impacted, since these are the states that the Fourth Circuit covers.

What Happened?

Continue reading

Why Your Standard Agreements with Staffing Agencies Are Risky Business (Starring Tom Cruise)

broken-glass-joint-employment-agreementIt’s Valentine’s Day. You and your sweetie want to get away for the weekend. Your high school offspring will stay home. They seem responsible, promise not to break the law, and promise if they break anything they will pay for it. So you’re good, right?

Come on, wake up. Have you seen Risky Business? American Pie? House Party (very underrated movie, by the way)? Continue reading

New NYC Law Requires Written Agreements for Solo Contractors, Even Nannies and Babysitters!

baby-tears-small-child-sad-47090Do you have a nanny or a housekeeper? A regular babysitter? If so, pay attention.

Anyone hiring a solo independent contractor in New York City will need to comply with the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, which takes effect May 15, 2017. Anyone. Individuals included.

The Act requires a written agreement for all contracts where the value of services is $800 or more, either in a single contract or in the aggregate over the past 120 days.  Continue reading