At a chess tournament earlier this month in Makhachkala, Russia, one competitor tried a new strategy. She (allegedly) smeared mercury on the board and chess pieces of her opponent before the match. There’s video. This seems a bit outside the rules. After her opponent began experiencing respiratory distress and tasted iron in her mouth, the Mercury Gambit proved not to be a long-term winning play.
The saboteur now faces criminal prosecution and a lifetime chess ban. So don’t try this at home.
The DOL is facing an array of gambits too. But these gambits are lawsuits, each trying to get a court to revoke the DOL’s recently adopted independent contractor rule. The rule went into effect March 11, 2024, and we wrote about it here.
I’m aware of four pending challenges to the rule, all in federal court:
In a Texas case brought by a coalition of business groups, the plaintiffs filed a brief July 1st arguing that under the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, the DOL lacked authority to issue the rule. Coalition for Workforce Innovation v Su, E.D. Texas.
In a Georgia case filed by freelance writers and editors, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, all of which are still pending. Warren v Su, N.D. Ga.
In a Louisiana case, a family-owned trucking company sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the rule from taking effect. The motion was denied, and the plaintiffs intend to appeal. The court has stayed the case pending the appeal. Frisard’s Transportation v DOL, E.D. La.
In a Tennessee case, two writers filed suit to try to enjoin the rule, and the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Pittman v. DOL, M.D., Tenn.
When compared to mercury poisoning, court challenges really seem to be the way to go. I commend the strategy. Perhaps not as original, but tried and true.
The DOL’s 2024 independent contractor rule remains in effect for now, and businesses should structure their independent contractor arrangements to comply.
In this video, Muhammad Rashid of Pakistan, crushes 39 cans in 30 seconds. With his head. (I like the little fist pump he gives at the end.)
Why would a person do this? To get attention, I imagine. It caught my attention.
The House Committee of Education and the Workforce may also be trying to solicit a bit of attention, but I do want to know the answers to the Committee’s questions.
On August 8, they sent this letter to Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, asking her for information about the DOL’s enforcement activity under its new independent contractor rule. The Committee would like the DOL to answer three questions:
1) Since January 20, 2021, how many instances of misclassification have Wage and Hour Division (WHD) inspectors found? Please provide the total number of instances across each occupation that has been subject to investigation.
2) Please provide the number of misclassification enforcement investigations WHD has initiated for each specific industry sector since January 20, 2021.
3) Has DOL initiated any investigations related to misclassification based on its coordination with the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission? If so, please provide the number of investigations DOL has undertaken, broken down by each specific industry segment.
Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-not from Virginia) writes that she asked Su these questions when Su appeared before the Committee on May 1, but Su failed to answer. The letter begins by knocking Su around a bit, alleging that the DOL with its new independent contractor rule is trying to destroy all independent contractor relationships.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t know where this letter falls on the continuum of publicity stunt vs. actual relevance for policy making, but I think these are good questions. It would be hopeful for businesses to know whether the DOL’s enforcement strategy has shifted since enactment of the new rule. And if so, how.
The Committee might get the answers it seeks, or it might just be banging its head against the wall cans. But it never hurts to ask.
What Mr. Rashid was doing, on the other hand, does hurt. Or it should hurt. And if it doesn’t hurt, then maybe that tells us something too. Also, I think Mr. Rashid owes someone the cost of 39 beers.
That’s because I just read the 65-page opinion in Johnson v. NCAA. The issue before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was whether college athletes could plausibly be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
A massive class action had been brought, and the NCAA and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The district court denied it, allowing the case to move forward. The NCAA was allowed an immediate appeal, but the Third Circuit has affirmed and allowed the case to proceed.
Here’s why I am whelmed.
I am underwhelmed by the Third Circuit’s legal analysis, which has more faults than a novice tennis player learning to serve. I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from an eventual finding that college athletes are, in fact, employees.
Overwhelmed plus underwhelmed must equal whelmed, right?
The word overwhelmedcomes from the Middle English whelmen, which meant “to overturn.” For speakers of Modern English, that’s nothing more than a fun fact, though, because we’d have a really hard time understanding anyone speaking Middle English anyway. Maybe you had to read The Canterbury Tales in school? Cliffnotes, please.
I am underwhelmed by the legal analysis for many reasons.
1. The Third Circuit acknowledges but then disregards the Supreme Court’s instruction in Walling v Portland Terminal that “[a]n individual who ‘without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose of pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit,’ is outside the sweep of the Act [FLSA].”
2. The Third Circuit acknowledges but the disregards the Department of Labor’s longstanding position and guidance in its Field Operations Handbook, sec. 10b03(e), which says that the activity of college students participating in interscholastic athletics primarily for their own benefit as part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school is not ‘work.’”
3. The Third Circuit ignores the long-recognized concept that play is not work. The dictionary definition relied upon by the Supreme Court in the Walling case differentiated “work” from “something undertaken primarily for pleasure, sport, or immediate gratification….”
4. The Third Circuit butchers the well-established Economic Realities Test, which is the standard for determining employee status under the FLSA. The Third Circuit instead advocates for applying the common law test of agency, which, according to the Supreme Court, is not the test.
5. The Third Circuit pays little attention to the fact that students who elect to play sports do so with no expectation of payment, making them volunteers. Volunteers are not subject to the FLSA (whether at U. Tenn. or otherwise).
6. The Third Circuit makes up a new four-part test (out of thin air) for determining when “college athletes may be employees”:
We therefore hold that college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) “necessarily and primarily for the [other party’s] benefit,” Tenn. Coal, 321 U.S. at 598, (c) under that party’s control or right of control, id., and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits,”
I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from a ruling that 500,000 collegiate athletes across 1,100 schools are employees of their schools.
If these schools had to pay minimum wage and overtime to all college athletes, that would bust their athletic budgets. Sports that do not pay for themselves (essentially all except major football and some basketball programs) would have to be cut.
Remember when Title IX caused schools to cut unprofitable men’s sports like diving and swimming so they could equalize their offerings of men’s and women’s sports? If only football and men’s basketball are profitable, then schools will need to maintain equivalent women’s sports to comply with the mandates of Title IX. That means some women’s sports will survive, at a loss to offset the opportunities given to men in football and basketball, and the other men’s sports will be cut. If we have to pay, then you can’t play.
International students on F-1 visas would have to be cut from their teams, since their visas generally do not allow them to engage in compensable employment. (That’s why international students can’t take NIL money.) Or federal immigration law will need to be changed.
Unless other laws are changed, schools might be required to provide these employees with healthcare benefits, family or medical leave (paid in some states), reimbursement of expenses in some states, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and a range of other benefits.
If the courts mess this up, which seems very possible, Congress will need to step in and enact a comprehensive set of rules applicable to college athletes.
For now, the immediate impact of this decision is limited. The Third Circuit did not rule that college athletes are employees under the FLSA. They ruled only that it is plausible that circumstances may exist under which college athletes could be employees under the FLSA. Procedurally, all that happened here is that a motion to dismiss was denied.
Next, the parties will fight over class certification, which could cause the case to fall apart, given the massively divergent situations of, say, a D-1 football player at Alabama and a D-3 bowler at Whatsamatta U.
The issue of whether college athletes are employees under federal wage and hour laws, federal labor laws (NLRA), and a myriad of other laws (state and federal) is not going away soon.
My fear, though, is that courts are (1) likely to apply the wrong legal analysis (as the Third Circuit did here, appearing completely lost), (2) likely to misapply laws that were never intended for this situation, and (3) likely to cause a cascade of unintended consequences that will lead to the end of college sports — unless Congress steps in. (Insert joke here.)
It can mean the front part of the head, as in this selfie featuring two hairy-faced beasts. The one on the left has a wet drippy beard after sloppily drinking water from a bowl. No, I meant on your left.
It can mean the English rock band formed in 1969, which featured Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood. Their 1971 album, A Nod Is As Good As a Wink… to a Blind Horse, reached #2 in the UK charts.
Or it can be a verb, as in “DOL Independent Contractor Test Faces Court Challenges.” In today’s post, we’re going with verb.
As expected, the independent contractor rule released by the DOL earlier this month is already being challenged in court.
A coalition of business groups is trying to invalidate the rule by asking the Fifth Circuit to reopen an earlier case. In the earlier case, these groups challenged the Biden DOL’s effort to withdraw the Trump DOL’s 2021 version of the independent contractor rule. The 2021 version would have simplified the test, focusing the analysis on two key factors — control and opportunity for profit or loss. In the lawsuit, the business groups argued that the Biden DOL’s efforts to delay and withdraw the Trump DOL’s 2021 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
These groups now argue that the new rule contains the same legal flaws and that that the Trump DOL rule should be the rule that rules. The case is Coalition for Workforce Innovation v. Su, 5th Cir., No. 22-40316.
A second challenge has been filed by freelancer writers and editors who argue that the new rule is impermissibly vague and “freewheeling” (an excellent word choice) and that it violates the APA. They claim that the new rule impermissibly threatens their ability to work as independent contractors and is too vague to allow them to reasonably structure their businesses.
These challenges will take a while to resolve, and more may be filed. Unless a court issues an injunction staying the rule while these cases proceed, the new rule will take effect March 11th.
In the meantime, we’ll keep watching to see what happens. It’s a real face off!
This is a venomous Eastern Brown Snake, native to Australia. Stay away.
Tennis star Dominic Thiem knew what to watch for in his match this past weekend in Brisbane. It was on-court hazard he couldn’t ignore.
Play was interrupted when a “really poisonous snake” slithered onto the court near the ballkids. The intruder, an Eastern Brown Snake, “has the unfortunate distinction of causing more deaths by snake bite than any other species of snake in Australia.” The snake’s venom causes “progressive paralysis and uncontrollable bleeding,” which is not one of the on-court hazards typically of ballkidding.
(I don’t know if ballkidding is the real word for this, but it should be. Or ballkiddery maybe. I also learned from the snake bite article that the proper term for being bit by a venomous snake is “envenomation,” which is a word I hope to use elsewhere in a sentence sometime in 2024. So there’s a New Year’s resolution. [@Lisa, take note, I made one, even though you {correctly} say I am no fun because I won’t play the New Year’s Resolution game.])
The Eastern Brown Snake is not present in the U.S., so we don’t have to watch for any in 2024.
But here are several other things that could bite you in the behind in 2024 if you’re not paying attention:
1. New DOL test for independent contractor misclassification. The DOL issued its proposed new rule in October 2022 and targeted the fall of 2023 for release of a new final rule. The proposed rule would identify seven factors to consider when evaluating whether someone is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule will likely be very similar. We’re still waiting, and the final rule could be released at any time.
2. The new NLRB test for joint employment takes effect Feb. 26, 2024. Unless it doesn’t. The new rule is being challenged in both a federal district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Either court could quash the rule. The new rule will substantially expand who is a joint employer under the NLRA, even for worksites without unions.
3. Increased state and local enforcement activity. States and localities are filing their own lawsuits alleging worker misclassification. The New Jersey Attorney General recently filed a major lawsuit. The California Attorney General and California localities have been pursuing misclassification lawsuits too. Remember this: As much as I advocate for individual arbitration agreements with class waivers, they have no effect on enforcement actions brought by a state or local government. These lawsuits pose a substantial risk, and the governments love to issue one-sided accusatory press releases when they file the lawsuits.
4. The feds are doing this too. The DOL is bringing its own enforcement actions and publicizing them.
5. State and local laws that affect independent contractor classification and joint employment. We’re seeing legislative activity in three main areas:
(a) laws to change the tests; (b) laws that provide a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain protections are provided to the workers (Cal. Prop 22, this proposed Mass. state law); and (c) Freelancers laws that impose various requirements when retaining a solo independent contractor (currently: NY, IL, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, NYC, Columbus).
6. State laws that criminalize worker misclassification. Take a look at recent legislation passed in NY State and Rhode Island.
7. State laws governing the use of temporary workers. Look for more states to enact laws like the Illinois Day and Temporary Worker Services Act (amended in Aug. 2023) and the New Jersey Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (enacted in Aug, 2023). These laws force companies that use staffing agencies to disclose the wages and benefits being paid to direct employees.
8. California’s AB 5 is still being challenged. This is the law that codified the ABC Test for most independent contractor relationships. But it also included a grab bag of miscellaneous and arbitrary exceptions. A full en banc Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5.
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and litigation-free 2024.
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.
In school we all learned that the longest river is the Nile. But some say the Amazon is longer. In the atlas “Maps of Useful Knowledge” (1846), the Amazon was listed as 3200 miles and the Nile 2750 miles. The current U.S. Geological Survey shows the Nile at 4132 miles and the Amazon at 4000 miles. Brazilian researchers claim the Amazon is 4331 miles long and the Nile a mere 4258 miles.
So which is it, and how can it be changing? Apparently the controversy involves disputes over where the rivers start, where they end, and how to track changes in the rivers’ course.
Whatever you learned about the test for who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is subject to change too.
Remember October 2022? Elon Musk completed a $44B deal to take over twitter. Germany took steps to legalize marijuana. And the DOL released a proposed new regulation to modify the independent contractor test.
The proposed rule received more than 50,000 comments. We’ve been speculating about when the DOL might issue a final rule.
We’ve now learned that the DOL is targeting this fall for release of the new rule. The latest version of the regulatory agenda lists August as the target release date. August may be a bit ambitious, but the fall seems likely. On June 9, a federal court of appeals granted a motion by the DOL for a 120-day stay in a pending lawsuit. The DOL asked for the stay to allow it time to release the new rule.
So it seems that whatever we know now about the length of the Nile River, the length of the Amazon River, and the independent comntractor test under the FLSA is subject to change. Hopefully we’ll know more about all three by sometime this fall.
We can be pretty sure the final rule will closely resemble the multi-factor balancing test released in October 2022. Businesses can plan accordingly by being proactive in assessing their relationships with independent contractors and taking steps to reduce risk now.
In the Muppet Movie, Kermit famously wondered, “Why are there so many songs about rainbows?”
Articles in Psychology Today and Remind Magazine have attempted to answer this question. A blog post on the Tough Pigs website almost took a contrary view in a post titled “Why There AREN’T So Many Songs About Rainbows,” but that was a twitter gimmick asking for wrong answers only.
Turns out there are quite a few songs about rainbows. You can google it. There’s also a pretty good band called Rainbow (“Man on the Silver Mountain,” “Since You Been Gone”), and the University of Hawaii’s teams are the Rainbow Warriors, f/k/a just the Rainbows, which probably didn’t frighten much of their football competition in the Mountain West.
I’m inspired by Kermit’s lyrical question, but my thoughts stray in a different direction: Why are there so many … joint employment tests, just under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? Shouldn’t courts applying a federal law use the same test in every jurisdiction? Of course they should, but they don’t.
Here are the current tests for joint employment under the FLSA, in a nutshell:
The First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits apply a four-factor test based on a 1983 case called Bonette. The test considers whether the putative joint employer (1) can hire and fire employees, (2) controls employees’ work and employment conditions, (3) determines rates of pay, and (4) maintains employment records. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Second Circuit rejects the Bonette test as too focused on agency, instead applying a non-exclusive six-factor test. Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co, Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 71-76 (2d Cir. 2003).
The Eleventh Circuit applies an eight-factor test that includes the Bonette factors and adds factors related to economic dependence. Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Fourth Circuit is having none of what the other circuits are having and goes in an entirely different direction. The Fourth Circuit’s test compares the two putative employers to determine whether they are “completely dissociated.” Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2017); Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757 (4th Cir. 2017). The Fourth Circuit’s test is so far off the mark that it relies on a (mis)interpretation of a federal regulation that no longer exists.
And speaking of federal regulations that no longer exist, the Department of Labor’s regulation defining joint employment under the FLSA? You guessed it. It no longer exists.
In 2021, the DOL rescinded the joint employer regulation that had been adopted by the Trump DOL in 2020. The 2020 regulation has rescinded the previous regulation, which had been around for decades. No new regulation has been adopted, and so there is no regulation. Part 791 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, formerly home to the DOL’s joint employment regulation, is empty.
So, why are there so many tests for joint employment? No good reason. There just are.
But that could change. Following a recent Ninth Circuit decision tagging Los Angeles County as a joint employer, L.A. County has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the joint employment test. So we’ll see what happens there. A conservative Supreme Court majority might recognize how absurd it is that one federal statute can be interpreted so many different ways. Maybe they’ll take the case and announce one test for everyone.
In the meantime, if you’re looking for the joint employer test under the FLSA, you’ll need to look in several places. The test depends on where you are. All of us under its spell. We probably know that it’s ma-gic!
There’s an island in Quebec that’s larger in area than the lake in which it sits. René-Levasseur Island was supposedly formed by the impact of a meteorite 214 million years ago, although eyewitness accounts differ. The land mass became an island in 1970, when the Manicougan reservoir was flooded, merging two crescent shaped lakes that surrounded the area.
I like fun geography facts, and an island larger than the lake in which it sits is a fun fact. But feels a bit aggressive for the Canadians to merge two crescent shaped lakes to turn this land mass into an island. I’m sure they had their reasons. If nothing else, it looks good on a map.
The Department of Labor is also being aggressive, but they’re not flooding any reservoirs. Instead, they’re channeling their aggression toward independent contractor misclassification.
In a news release this month, the DOL announced that it had obtained a consent judgment for $5.6 million against a national auto parts distributor and an Arizona logistics firm for allegedly misclassifying 1,398 drivers as independent contractors. The award included back wages and liquidated damages.
The DOL had alleged that, by misclassifying the drivers, the companies failed to meet minimum wage requirements, failed to pay overtime rates, and failed to keep required timekeeping records. These failures each were violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The award covered an eight-year period between April 2012 and March 2020.
I see three takeaways here:
First, the DOL is being aggressive in filing lawsuits when it thinks independent contractors have been misclassified. This consent judgment shows how expensive these claims can be for companies that improperly classify workers. Companies using independent contractors needs to be proactive in evaluating their risks and taking steps to minimize those risks. There are lots of ways to reduce risk if you plan ahead, before you’ve been sued or investigated.
Second, this case is a reminder that companies who classify delivery drivers as independent contractors are at heightened risk. Federal and state agencies and the plaintiffs’ bar seem to be filing a disproportionate number of claims involving delivery drivers. If your business uses delivery drivers who are classified as independent contractors, you may be at an increased risk of an audit or lawsuit.
Third, remember the DOL’s proposed new rule for independent contractor classification under the FLSA? (Read more here, here, and here.) The DOL wants to change the current test for who is an employee under the FLSA, replacing a regulation adopted by the Trump Administration in 2020. But cases like this one show that the current regulation is not impairing the DOL’s ability to enforce what it perceives as misclassification. The DOL’s many recent successes — as posted in DOL news releases — show that the DOL is doing just fine under the current rule when it comes to misclassification enforcement. The new rule is a solution without a problem.
Large judgments like this one seem shocking, but they are a reminder of the substantial dangers of misclassification.
Learn more by joining me at the 10th Annual 2023 BakerHostetler Labor Relations and Employment Law Master Class, all virtual, one hour every Tuesday starting February 7, 2023. My program on Contingent Workforce issues will be on March 7, 2023. Registration is free.
Who Is My Employee? 