California’s AB 5 Has Been Repealed, Sort Of.

Rain rain go away, come again another day.

When Zeus sends his thunderbolts into Cleveland, Zippy gets scared. The snow, wind, and rain don’t bother her, but the thunder and lightning cause her to shake. Usually she hides in the shower.

Seeking shelter from the storm (apologies to Robert Zimmerman) is what California businesses are doing too. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), codifying the ABC Test for determining who is an employee, has been in effect since January 1, 2020.

On Friday, a new law repealed and replaced it. This new law, AB 2257, passed both chambers in the California legislature unanimously and was signed into law September 4 by Gov. Newsom. It contains an urgency clause, which means it takes immediate effect. So AB 5 is gone.

Great news for businesses, right? Not exactly.

AB 2257 moves the ABC test to a different part of the California Labor Code– new Sections 2775 through 2787–and cleans up some of the confusing and poorly considered language in AB 5. It does not, however, provide relief from the ABC Test for most large businesses.

The revisions make it easier for entertainers, freelance writers and photographers, and digital content aggregators to maintain independent contractor status. It scraps the arbitrary 35-article limit for freelance writers to maintain independent contractor status. It allows entertainers to perform single event gigs without becoming employees. It cleans up some other language too, but it does not make substantial changes that would excuse large businesses from the ABC test.

For example, subsection 2750.3(f) of AB 5 addressed whether an exception applies for work requiring a license from the Contractors State License Board (CSLB). The exception, with its multi-part test, is unchanged. It just moves to a new section of the Labor Code, new Section 2781.

One small glimmer of hope comes from some clarifying language for the business-to-business exception. That exception still does not apply for work that requires a CSLB license. To fall within that exception (meaning that the ABC Test would not apply), one of the requirements is that the work must be performed for the benefit of the contracting business, not its customers. Under the revised law, that requirement goes away if “the business service provider’s employees are solely performing the services under the contract under the name of the business service provider and the business service provider regularly contracts with other businesses.” For grammarians who despise double negatives, this is an exception to the exception. You’re welcome. What it means is if your subcontractor has its own employees, operates as its own business, and performs work not requiring a CSLB license, it may be easier to meet the business-to-business exception, thereby avoiding the ABC test.

So where does that leave us? On one hand, the fact that the bill passed both chambers unanimously shows a recognition that AB 5 had some serious flaws. But on the other hand, the fixes that both chambers thought were appropriate are of minimal help to large businesses. It’s like unleashing a horrible lab-created supermonster, then deciding that its eyelashes should be less curly. The largely-superficial changes in AB 2257 are mainly designed to help maintain independent contractor status for individuals who truly run their own businesses, particularly in the entertainment, journalism, and digital content fields.

This new law obliterates AB 5 in name, but not in function.

Like the blanket I gave Zippy, this move by the California legislature is not likely to provide any shelter from the storm. The ABC Test in California remains alive and well. Whether you grab a blanket or hide in the shower, the ABC Test is here to stay.

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Cut Off This, But Not That! Here’s Today’s Independent Contractor Tip

In 1877, the Police News reported the story of a dancer’s amputated leg sold at auction. But the story might not be as it seems, says Dr. Bob Nicholson, who studies news clippings from the Victorian era and is a fun follow on twitter.

Cutting off legs might not be a good way to raise money, but cutting independent contractors off from certain privileges may save your busienss money.

Whenever possible, cut off contractors from doing things that link them to your business. They should appear to the public as independent businesses, which hopefully they are.

To prevent contractors from portraying themselves in a way that may make them seem like employees, consider adding a clause like this one to your independent contractor agreements:

Contractor shall not use the Company’s name or logo in any of Contractor’s marketing or publicity materials, on clothing or other attire, on business cards, on a website, on social media, or in any other manner, unless the Company has granted permission in advance, in writing.

Sometimes you need your contractors to display your company logo, such as if they are being sent to customers’ homes for an installation. In those circumstances, consider adding “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” in prominent language on any clothing that includes your company’s logo or name.

Proactive steps like this can help bolster your defense against misclassification claims. For balancing tests like the Right to Control Test and the Economic Realities Test, every good fact helps, and every bad fact hurts. Put as many brick on the good facts side of the scale as you can.

And if things don’t work out, you can always use this neat trick with your parasol to keep away bears.

Thanks again, Dr. Bob!

 

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Never Surrender: Appeals Court Grants Reprieve for Ride Share App Companies; Focus Turns to Prop 22.

Album cover: Boy in the Box.
Label: Aquarius in Canada, EMI America in the U.S.
Sleeves: Definitely rolled up if you could see them.

Thank you to Canadian singer Corey Hart for providing the theme to this week’s post. The Number 3 song this week in 1985 opens with, “Just a little more time is all we’re asking for.” The song, of course, is Never Surrender.

Last week we wrote about the preliminary injunction granted by a California Superior Court, preventing ride share app companies statewide from continuing to classify drivers as independent contractors. We called that ruling “Act I” because the matter was headed to appeal.

As expected, the matter was immediately appealed. Now it’s time to queue up Canada’s Juno Award winner for 1985 “Single of the Year“:

Just a little more time is all we’re asking for.

‘Cause just a little more time could open closing doors.

In a more musical world, those would have been the opening lines to the Motion for Stay in the Court of Appeals. Regardless, the motion was granted, and the ride share app companies are not going to reclassify anyone quite yet.

If the stay was not granted, the ride share app companies had threatened to shut down in California.

Oral arguments are scheduled for mid-October, which means a decision is months away. As we expected in last week’s post, the real action is on Proposition 22, on the ballot this November.

If Proposition 22 passes, the new ABC Test in Assembly Bill 5 (which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020) would not apply to workers in the app-based rideshare and delivery business. Instead, those workers could stay classified as independent contractors, but the app-based companies must ensure that the drivers receive a predetermined level of compensation and benefits, including:

  • Earnings Minimum. The measure would require app-based companies to pay at least 120 percent of the minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving—but not time spent waiting for requests.
  • Health Insurance Stipend. The measure would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide a health insurance stipend of about $400 per month to drivers who regularly work more than 25 hours per week (not including waiting time). Drivers who average 15 driving hours per week but less than 25 driving hours would receive half as much.
  • Medical Expenses and Disability Insurance. The measure would require that companies buy insurance to cover driver medical expenses and provide disability pay when a driver is injured while driving.
  • Rest Policy. The measure would prohibit drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company.
  • Other. The measure would require that rideshare and delivery companies have sexual harassment prevention policies and conduct criminal background checks and safety training for all drivers. It also would prohibit discrimination in hiring and firing.

The measure would also prevent cities and counties from passing further restrictions on driver classification.

Here’s the webpage for Yes on 22. Keep a close eye on the results of the vote because it will probably determine the future of ride share in California.

And don’t forget to wear your sunglasses at night.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

Something Is Rotten in the State of California? Ride Share Misclassification Ruling Is Merely Act I

CA flag pole

“To be or not to be” are the opening words of a soliloquy by Prince Hamlet. With that, I have exhausted what I remember about Shakespearean plays without consulting Wikipedia. Having consulted Wikipedia, I can confirm that this soliloquy occurs in Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1.

A lot happens in Act III and beyond, and if you stopped reading Hamlet after Act I, you’d miss most of the action, including assorted plotting, scheming and mayhem.

Last week in California, a different kind of mayhem began in a major case involving alleged independent contractor misclassification. In California v. Uber, a state superior court judge granted a preliminary injunction, requiring ride-sharing app companies to reclassify California drivers as employees. But this order might not be the poisoned blade it seems to be. Either the ruling is a substantial blow, or it’s much ado about nothing. For now, it’s too early to tell. We’re still in Act I. Like in Hamlet, the real action will be in the later acts.

Read the rest of the post here, on BakerHostetler’s Employment Law Spotlight Blog.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

Identity Unclear? Court Adds to Confusion for Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

chickenZoanthropy is a mental disorder in which a person believes he or she is an animal. In this recent case, a 54-year old Belgian woman mistook herself for a chicken. The rare condition — and the woman’s clucking — stopped suddenly when she had a seizure, which apparently is a decidedly un-chickenlike thing to have.

Identity crises continue to plague the courts too. As we reported here, arbitration agreements can become unenforceable when applied to drivers of goods, if those drivers are in “interstate commerce.” What it means to drive in “interstate commerce” is not so clear. We reported last month on seemingly contradictory decisions by the New Jersey Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals muddied things up more, ruling that GrubHub’s arbitration agreements with independent contractor drivers were enforceable, meaning that drivers who sued, claiming employee status, had to bring their claims individually through arbitration, not in a class action in court. The court ruled that these local food delivery drivers were not driving in “interstate commerce.” (Tip: If you’re craving fries, order from a fast food joint in your home state. )

That’s a nice win for GrubHub and for the enforcement of arbitration agreements in general.

Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to sort this out and tell us when drivers of goods are in “interstate commerce” and when they are not. Courts have tried to draw distinctions around whether the drivers cross state lines, whether the goods cross state lines even if the drivers do not, and whether the goods were “at rest” before being driven the last mile. We have different standards being used by different courts in different states — even though they’re all just trying to interpret the meaning of an exception in a federal law, the Federal Arbitration Act.

The end result is that companies using arbitration agreements with drivers of goods may — or may not — be able to enforce their arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act.

For now, confusion reigns. But at least our Belgian chicken lady is back to normal. OddityCentral reports that some cases of zoanthropy have lasted decades.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

Up North, Uber Can’t Make Drivers Go to Amsterdam to Sue. (Wait, What?)

exposI bought a Montreal Expos t-shirt last week. Why? I needed some new work clothes.

I’ve been emailing with a friend in Ontario about the difference between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to coronavirus precautions, and we both agree it’s a good idea to keep the border closed for now. Did you see the Maid of the Mist pictures showing the Canadian boat with six well-distanced (and undoubtedly polite) passengers and the American boat packed like it’s 2019. Canada has hardly any cases. Anyway, I digress. As usual.

While Canada is on my mind, I’ll share a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling will allow a proposed $400 million class action against Uber to proceed in Ontario on the issue of whether drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.

At issue was the validity of Uber’s arbitration agreements for drivers in Canada. The agreement required drivers to arbitrate any disputes in Amsterdam, following the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce and Netherlands law. Wait. What? Yes.

And there’s this: Filing a case would cost a driver US $14,500 in up-front administrative fees.

The Court’s opinion called the arbitration clause “unconscionable,” and Uber responded by confirming to The Star that it planned to update its arbitration agreements accordingly.

Gig economy platforms are under attack in Ontario, much like in the U.S. Think of Ontario as Canada’s version of California or Massachusetts but with better access to poutine.

According to The Star, the Ontario labour relations board ruled earlier this year that couriers for a food delivery app were not true independent contractors and therefore had the right to join a union. Drivers using the Uber Black platform are also challenging their classification as contractors. American expats are challenging the use of a superfluous U by the labour relations board.

Lesson: If you’re going to require arbitration, be reasonable. Amsterdam might be a nice place to visit (see the Vondelpark!), but it’s too much of a stretch to require an Ontario rideshare driver to go there to file a claim. Next time, try Greenland?

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

Do Not Break Glass: Arbitration Clauses May Shatter in Agreements with Independent Contractor Delivery Drivers

largest-glass-blown-sculpture

Photo: CGTN/CFP

When your kids were little, did they ever run around in places they shouldn’t, causing you to fear what would happen if they broke something? Well you’re not alone. The world’s largest glass-blown sculpture sits in a museum in Shanghai. At least it did until recently. On May 30, two children accidentally broke it while running through the museum playing. There was a protective belt to try to prevent this sort of thing, but the kids ran right through it.

The moral of the story is that protective belts are not always good enough. The same is true when it comes to independent contractor agreements. One of the most useful protective belts we can install to protect against misclassification claims is a well-drafted arbitration clause with a class action waiver. That forces any independent contractor who claims to be an employee to fight that battle on an individual basis in front of an arbitrator. No court, no class action.

But this protective belt doesn’t always work, especially in the transportation industry.

Arbitration agreements with class action waivers work well in most industries. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), these agreements are generally enforceable, and they’ve saved many a large company from having to face gigantic misclassification class actions.

But the FAA has an exception. It doesn’t apply to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. There’s been lots of litigation over what that means and how broad the exception is.

A pair of decisions last week tried to address this question with respect to last-mile delivery drivers.

Both cases assumed the last-mile drivers were transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, even though they generally did not cross state lines.  (We don’t know how the US Supreme Court would rule on that question). Since the FAA did not apply, the question then became whether the arbitration clauses and class action waivers were enforceable under state law.

Two courts, two cases, and two states resulted in two very different outcomes.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements with delivery drivers are enforceable under New Jersey Arbitration Act, even if not under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

But a federal appeals court took the opposite view of the same issue under Massachusetts law, ruling that a class action waiver in an arbitration clause is void because it is contrary to Massachusetts public policy.

So what does this mean for companies who use independent contractors in the transportation industry?

Depending on the facts and the court, the FAA might or might not apply. If the FAA does not apply, the question of whether the arbitration clause and class action waiver can be enforced will depend on state law.

That means companies need to be very careful in drafting their choice of law provisions and their severability clauses. If parts of the arbitration clause are unenforceable because of the class action waiver, will the whole clause be cut or just the class action waiver? If a court severs only the class action waiver, could you end up in class arbitration? The contract should also anticipate that possibility, and the arbitration clause should contain language prohibiting the arbitrator from hearing a class action. The effect of that clause would be to force the class action back to federal court. Most companies, if faced with a class action, would prefer to defend class claims in court rather than in arbitration.

These two cases highlight the importance of considering these issues when drafting independent contractor agreements in the transportation industry. While different state laws may lead to different outcomes, your contract should plan for the worst and be written to protect against the least desired outcome.

And if you are put in charge of security at a museum, try a better protective belt.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

Here’s a Question I Was Asked Three Times This Week (and the Answer)

Zippy sunset Charlevoix

Zippy on vacation

The word “sunset” can be used to signify many things. My personal favorite is the one pictured here. That’s Zippy enjoying the view this past weekend in Charlevoix, Michigan.

Another meaning of Sunset” is to fade out or to discontinue. That’s the meaning I’m after here.

One question came up multiple times this week, with some slight variations. Here it is, along with the answer.

Question:  When the pandemic began, we laid off an employee. We now have some work for that employee, but not as much as before. Can I bring back the employee as an independent contractor?

Answer:  Sunset that idea. Let it fade away. Discontinue that thinking. Probably not.

Any time the same individual receives a W-2 and a 1099 in the same calendar year, red flags go up. It’s a strong indicator of misclassification. If the worker’s work was employment before the pandemic, it’s almost certainly employment now — even if the hours are reduced or the recall is for a limited time.

Remember, the Employee vs. Independent Contractor question is answered by looking at the facts related to the work and how it is performed, regardless of what the parties call the relationship. If you’re bringing back an employee to perform similar work, you should probably be bringing that employee back as an employee.

In the IRS’s handbook for Worker Classification Determinations, the Service instructs its agents that when a worker has received a W-2 and a 1099 in the same year, the agent is to perform a full status review. It’s a likely sign of misclassification. Also, you probably don’t want the IRS to do a full anything.

There may be situations where it’s ok, such as if the laid off worker quickly established her own business, advertised to the public, secured other clients, and wants to bring on your business as a new client. But it’s pretty unlikely all that has happened since March.

The pandemic has given us all enough to deal with. Let’s not add a misclassification claim to the list of concerns.

Remember, it’s ok to bring back an employee as a part-time employee, or for a limited time with a projected end date. But retain the worker’s status as an employee.

And for those looking to get away during the pandemic, I highly recommend finding a beach house on Lake Michigan. Can’t beat these views!

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

New Rules for Drivers? California’s ABC Test Could Change Again in 2021

Worst parking.jpg

Rebellious? Indifferent? Clueless? I’m still trying to understand how this car thought it was ok to take up FOUR parking spaces in the parking lot at a Walgreens near my house.

Any one of the spaces seems suitable for a car of ordinary proportions. I have parked in most of these four spots before, and my experiences were uniformly positive. I’d give four stars to each spot. Reliable, met expectations. Near enough to the store entrance. Picking just one of the four would be an excellent way to start your shopping experience.

When people don’t like the rules they’re expected to follow, one approach is to try to change the rules. That’s what ride share and delivery app companies are doing in California.

Late last month, these companies achieved an important milestone, reaching the 625,000 signature threshold for a November ballot initiative that, if passed, would change the test in California for determining Employee vs. Independent Contractor. The measure will now appear on California ballots, giving voters the chance to override A.B. 5 for ride share and delivery app companies.

If the initiative passes, the new ABC Test would not apply to workers in the app-based rideshare and delivery business. Instead, those workers could stay classified as independent contractors, but the app-based companies must ensure that the drivers receive a predetermined level of compensation and benefits, including:

  • Earnings Minimum. The measure would require app-based companies to pay at least 120 percent of the minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving—but not time spent waiting for requests.
  • Health Insurance Stipend. The measure would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide a health insurance stipend of about $400 per month to drivers who regularly work more than 25 hours per week (not including waiting time). Drivers who average 15 driving hours per week but less than 25 driving hours would receive half as much.
  • Medical Expenses and Disability Insurance. The measure would require that companies buy insurance to cover driver medical expenses and provide disability pay when a driver is injured while driving.
  • Rest Policy. The measure would prohibit drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company.
  • Other. The measure would require that rideshare and delivery companies have sexual harassment prevention policies and conduct criminal background checks and safety training for all drivers. It also would prohibit discrimination in hiring and firing.

The measure would also prevent cities and counties from passing further restrictions on driver classification.

I wrote more about this bill here, leading the post with a harrowing flight selection option offered on my United app.

So if you‘re reading this post from the Left Coast, get out and vote in November. You can make a meaningful change in the way that California approaches the question of Who Is My Employee? In the meantime, drive safe, wear your mask, and park within the lines.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

Better Flow? Will New Bill Allow More Benefits for Independent Contractors — Without Risking Misclassification Claims?

toilet gig workers plumberA Sheboygan man was recently sentenced to 150 days in jail and probation for repeatedly clogging women’s toilets with plastic bottles. According to the Sheboygan Press, the serial toilet clogger told police he gets urges to do odd things, like look for bottles in the garbage to plug toilets.

I get urges to do odd things too, like scour local newspapers for stories like this one. But since I’m sharing this important knowledge with readers, I figure it’s for the greater good. (Repeat:) For the greater good. (See Hot Fuzz, my nominee for best movie ever.) 

Two recently introduced bills in Congress seek to protect the greater good when it comes to gig workers. In the current legal environment, digital marketplace companies are reluctant to do anything to provide assistance to independent contractors who use their platforms, since courts and agencies tend to use such good deeds as evidence that the contractors should really be classified as employees. For digital marketplace companies that rely on an independent contractor model, such a finding can cause serious damage to normal business operations — even worse than the mess caused by an overflowing bottle-clogged ladies’ toilet.

The Helping Gig Economy Workers Act of 2020 would permit digital marketplace companies to provide payments, health benefits, training, and PPE to users of the digital marketplace without these good deeds being used as evidence — in any federal, state, or local proceeding — that the company has misclassified its independent contractors or is acting as a joint employer. The bill would protect companies throughout the duration of the COVID-19 crisis.

The bill is co-sponsored in the House by Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), with a companion bill sponsored by four Republicans in the Senate.

Historically, Democrats have opposed any legislation that would solidify independent contractor status for workers, instead advocating for bills that would convert more contractors to employees. Will the COVID-19 crisis be a turning point?

With independent contractor delivery services needed now more than ever, will there be a push to allow companies to provide greater protection for these workers without fear that their good deeds will be used against them in a misclassification claim?

That remains to be seen. If this bill gains any momentum, it could be the equivalent of pulling a bottle out of the clogged toilet of independent contractor misclassification laws. (I concede the analogy is a stretch, but I’m doing my best here.)  This bill could signal a shift toward a philosophy of promoting greater benefits for independent contractor gig workers, rather than aiming solely to convert them all to employees. I’m not sure it will, but it might. This is one to watch.

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

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

 
2018_Web100Badge