The official state bee is the rusty patched bumblebee
The official state muffin is blueberry
Who knew the blueberry muffin lobby held such sway?
A less fun facts about Minnesota is that the state has made it really hard to be an independent contractor in the construction industry.
In 2024, the state legislature amended its independent contractor classification law to impose a 14-part test. In reality, it’s a 27-part test because some of the parts have mandatory subparts.
If you’re trying to engage an independent contractor in the construction industry in Minnesota, be extra careful. Construction includes commercial and residential improvement but excludes most landscaping services.
A collection of trade groups challenged the law, arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that its penalties (compensatory damages plus up to $10,000 per violation) were excessive. They sought a preliminary injunction to suspend the law while they could mount a more substantive challenge.
A district court denied the motion, and then last month the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The new test therefore remains in place. The Eighth Circuit expressed skepticism about each of the trade groups’ arguments and ruled that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
This case is a reminder that the independent contractor tests vary widely. There are different tests for different laws in different states and even within different industries.
Companies using independent contractors should check the laws of their state and industry before assuming that their contract will be sufficient to support contractor status.
A miss here could be painful. Like the sting of a rusty patched bumblebee. If that kind even stings. But for today, let’s assume it stings. And stings hard.
Friday night I saw The Gilmour Project play at Northfield MGM, a smallish venue near Cleveland. Great show with plenty of Pink Floyd deep cuts and a “how did they just do that?” version of The Great Gig in the Sky with an electric guitar handling the Clare Torry solo vocals.
And, as many of you know, there is a law requiring that the last song at any Pink Floyd tribute show must be “Comfortably Numb.” There were no violations of law at this concert.
Last week I came across another law that, in a totally unrelated way, left me uncomfortably numb.
Tucked away in a 1,492-page omnibus bill that regulates, among other things, firearms law, agricultural policy, specialty dentist licensure, minerals taxes, combative sports, and broadband appropriation transfer authority, the Minnesota legislature adopted a new test for determining who is an independent contractor under state law, limited to the construction industry. Page 183.
To satisfy the test, each of 14 factors must be present. Construction includes building improvement but not landscaping services [@LKE: saved you an email].
Why am I posting about such a niche classification test? Two reasons.
First, I suffered through reading it, so I am sharing my pain.
Second, and more important, it’s a good reminder that there are so many worker classification laws out there, with different tests applying across different laws in different states and across different industries.
Minnesota is the champion of this nonsense. The state that brought us rollerblades, water skis, and diaper adhesives has 32 different tests for determining who is an employee under state workers’ compensation law, with different tests applicable to different types of work.
If you are working with large numbers of independent contractors across multiple jurisdictions, there’s a lot to know if you want to do it right. Penalties for noncompliance can be severe, including criminal penalties in some states.
Bonus tip: If you need to fall asleep, pull out that omnibus bill and skip to page 1,086 for the new regulations covering natural organic reduction vessels for human remains. Subdivision 19 prohibits the commingling of bodies in crematorium vessels. I guess that’s good. A different kind of comfortably numb maybe.
Raise your hand if you remember songs by Laura Branigan? How about “Gloria”? Or this lyric? You take my self, you take my self control?
The song “Self Control” is about stepping into the nightlife, with a bit of seedier, seductive angle. The lyrics, though, remind us of another reason not to exert control over an independent contractor’s employees.
Suppose you retain a contractor to replace the roof on your building. The contractor has legitimate employees, and one falls through a weak spot on the roof. That’s a worker’s comp claim, and you’re not liable for some kind of premises liability claim, right?
The answer may depend on whether you’ve exerted control over the contractor’s employees.
Let’s look at California law, but the same principle can often be applied elsewhere. (Check your state’s law.) Under the Privette doctrine, a property owner who hires an independent contractor is liable to the contractor’s employee for injuries sustained on the job only if (1) the owner exercises control over any part of the contractor’s work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injuries, or (2) the employee is injured by a concealed hazard that is unknown and not reasonably ascertainable by the contractor.
The keys points in avoiding premises liability claims are, therefore:
Don’t exert control over how your contractors’ employees do their job, and
Make sure any hazards are marked or disclosed.
You could have other problems if the contractor misclassifies its workers and treats them as individual subcontractors. But avoiding control can also help you avoid joint employer liability in that situation.
The bottom line here when dealing with contractors’ employees is to avoid Laura Branigan’s idea of the nightlife: Don’t take their self, don’t take their self-control.
Sometimes injuries can be reasonably expected, sometimes not.
A good example of when injuries can be expected is the annual Bagwal festival in northern India. This year’s festival was described by Indian media as “a low-key affair” with only 77 of the 300 participants sustaining injuries. Wait, what?
At Bagwal, participants divide into four clans and hurl stones at each other to please a deity. According to this report, “The fight continues until a priest determines that enough blood has been shed in honor of the goddess Maa Barahi and demands to stop the fight.”
A good example of when injuries are not expected is when you retain an independent contractor to perform some sort of work on your property. Sometimes there are known hazards on the property. Sometimes there are no reasonable safety precautions that can be taken to minimize the hazard. For example, suppose you retain a contractor to fix a known safety risk.
The question: When an independent contractor gets injured by one of those known hazards, who is liable?
The California Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case with significant ramifications for business owners, property owners, and independent contractors.
The answer: The contractor is liable, not the property owner — but this assumes the contractor is properly classified as an independent contractor.
The rationale: Like in many states, California law presumes “that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety.” This doctrine, known in California as the Privette doctrine, means that a hirer is typically not responsible for injuries suffered by an independent contractor.
The Privette doctrine makes sense. It arose out based on four basic assumptions:
Hirers have no right to control an independent contractor’s work.
Contractors can factor in the cost of safety precautions and insurance in the contract price.
Contractors are able to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to cover any on-the-job injuries.
Contractors are typically hired for their expertise, which includes knowing how to perform the contracted work safely.
There are two exceptions:
A hirer may be liable when it exercises control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that control in a way that contributes to the injury.
A landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard.
In Gonzalez v. Mathis, the court was asked whether a third exception should be recognized when injuries “result from a known hazard on the premises where there were no reasonable safety precautions it could have adopted to avoid or minimize the hazard.”
The court declined to recognize this exception, holding that in this situation, the contractor is liable, not the hirer. Rules may vary in other states.
What should businesses do to protect themselves, in light of this ruling?
Make sure your contractors are properly classified as independent contractors under the applicable legal test. California uses an ABC Test for making this determination. Other California laws, such as Labor Code 2750.5 and 2810.3 complicate the analysis.
Make sure your contractors are licensed and insured. Licensing by the Contractors State Licensing Board is required in California for anyone who contracts to perform work on a project that is valued at $500 or more for combined labor and materials costs.
Do not exercise control over your contractors. Defer to their expertise.
Disclose known hazards, especially those that are not readily visible.
And if you’re looking for repair work to be done at or near a Bagwal festival, don’t forget warn your contractor about the risk of flying stones.
Suppose you are a general contractor, hired to erect a monument to honor Carlos Santana’s monument-worthy performance of the national anthem during last year’s NBA Finals. Because the monument will be so tall (to house the many awards he should win for it), you need to hire subcontractors. Suppose the subcontractors cheat their employees, though, and don’t pay them a proper wage.
Under a new California law, the general contractor is strictly liable for the sub’s wage violations.
There’s no balancing test. No Right to Control Test. No joint employment finding needed. It’s strict liability. Call it the Jerry Brown corollary to Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule. Someone else breaks it, you own it.
I hear you: “Not fair!” But as we all know, fair is not a required feature element of employment law in California. (Fair may still be an element of due process, however, for those who may seek to challenge the constitutionality of this law.)
The new law, cleverly titled “Section 218.7,” took effect January 1, 2018.
To try to protect themselves, contractors may require their subs to show proof of payment by the subs to its employees. They may also tell noncompliant subs, “you’ve got to change your evil ways, baby, before I start loving you.” But most contractors probably won’t say that.
Can OSHA cite your business for conditions that affect another company’s employees? Maybe.
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy addresses who gets cited for violations that occur on a multi-employer worksite. If your company hosts staffing agency workers, that may include you.
The policy has been subjected to several legal challenges, though, based on an argument that OSHA obligations extend only to an employer’s own employees. One of these challenges is currently pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based on a dispute over an Austin, Texas, construction site.
While we wait for a decision, though, here’s what OSHA has to say about its authority to issue citations on multi-employer worksites: Continue reading →
Who Is My Employee? 