by Todd Lebowitz

What is the Test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee? (Jan. 2019)

what is the test for independent contractor misclassification Seems like a simple question, but it isn’t. My question to your question is, “Why do you ask?” That’s because the test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee is different under different laws.

And worse, the tests keep changing, as we saw in Monday’s post about the NLRB’s SuperShuttle decision.

As of today, January 31, 2019, here’s where we stand:

The current tests for determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee are:

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)	Right to Control Test (SuperShuttle version, as of 1/25/19)
Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), ERISA	Right to Control Test (Darden version, or some variant of it, as applied circuit by circuit)
Internal Revenue Service	Right to Control Test (IRS version)
Affordable Care Act	Right to Control Test (emphasis on particular factors, based on regulation)
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)	Economic Realities Test (which different courts articulate differently)
California, Massachusetts wage & hour laws	ABC Tests (strict version of Part B)
New Jersey wage & hour	ABC Test (regular version of Part B)
California state laws other than wage & hour	S.G. Borello & Sons Test (customized hybrid version of Right to Control & Economic Realities Tests), we think, for now
State Unemployment and Workers Comp Laws	Pick a card, any card. Tests vary substantially state to state. Some are Right to Control Tests, some are ABC Tests, some are entirely made-up, customized tests that require consideration of — or proof of — specific factors
Other State Laws (wage & hour, discrimination, tax)	Tests vary significantly state by state, law by law

This chart may be a helpful start, but three significant challenges remain, when trying to determine Independent Contractor vs. Employee.

Fifty Shades of Gray. These tests, for the most part, are balancing tests. Courts and agencies must weigh multiple factors. In most instances, some factors will favor contractor status and some will favor employee status. Different courts may reach different conclusions, even with the same facts.
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Multi-state employers face the added challenge of having to deal with different tests in different states. Then, just to keep everyone on their toes, states generally apply different tests for different state laws. Sometimes different tests apply in different industries too. Transportation workers, for example, may be subject to different tests than construction workers.
Into the Wild. The tests keep changing. In January 2019, the NLRB changed its test in the SuperShuttle case. In 2018, California changed its test under state wage and hour law from the S.G. Borello balancing test to a strict ABC Test. In 2015, New Jersey switched to a different version of an ABC Test for its state wage and hour law. The times they are a-changin.

What to do about it? (Free tips!)

Know the tests that apply where your business operates.
Construct your independent contractor relationships in a way that tends to favor the factors supporting independent contractor status. Inevitably, business considerations will get in the way, and tough decisions will have to be made about how much control can be relinquished and how the relationships need to be structured. Adjust the facts of the relationship.
Use a customized independent contractor agreement that emphasizes the factors that support independent contractor status. Avoid off-the-shelf agreements. Merely reciting that everyone agrees the relationship is an independent contractor relationship is only a teeny bit helpful. “Teeny bit helpful” is not the gold standard.
Re-evaluate existing relationships, and make changes from time to time.
Implement a gatekeeper system to prevent operations managers from entering into contractor relationships that may be invalid. Require any retention of a contractor to be approved by a point person, who can issue spot and seek help in evaluating whether a contractor relationship is likely to withstand a misclassification challenge.
Seek legal help before you get audited or sued. Now is the time to review and modify relationships to reduce the likelihood of a misclassification claim. Once a claim is made, your business can only play defense. Create your playbook now, before the defense has to take the field.

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Philadelphia on Feb. 26 or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

01.28.19

by Todd Lebowitz

NLRB Changes Independent Contractor Test (Again). Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!

changes independent contractor test super shuttle nlrb The word of the day is change. Not the kind I needed Saturday morning when it required 37 quarters to drive 50 miles on the Florida Turnpike. (Thank you Walgreens, for the roll of quarters!) No, I mean the David Bowie kind. Turn and face the strange.

On Friday, the Trump-appointed, Republican-majority NLRB issued an important pro-business decision, changing the test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case is called SuperShuttle DFW and involves independent contractor airport shuttle drivers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

The new test is the old test. Or as Roger Daltrey might say, “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

The new test is the traditional common law Right to Control Test, which had been the test until 2014. In 2014, a Dem-led Board made it harder to prove independent contractor status by changing the test in a case called FedEx Home Delivery. The FedEx test asked whether the worker was “in fact, rendering services as part of an independent business” and essentially adopted an Economic Realities Test, rather than the Right to Control Test that had always been applied.

Friday’s decision brings back the old test — a traditional Right to Control Test.

A Right to Control Test asks who has the right to control the manner and means by which the work is completed. More control by the hiring party tilts toward a finding of employment. Less control means more entrepreneurial opportunity for the worker, which tilts toward a finding of independent contractor.

The Right to Control Test re-adopted in the Super Shuttle decision is a balancing test, and here are the factors the NLRB will consider:

(a) The extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work.

(b) Whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business.

(c) The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision.

(d) The skill required in the particular occupation.

(e) Whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work.

(f) The length of time for which the person is employed.

(g) The method of payment, whether by the time or by the job.

(h) Whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer.

(i) Whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant.

(j) Whether the principal is or is not in business.

In this case, the Amalgamated Transit Union was trying to organize 88 shuttle drivers, each of whom owned their vehicles and paid a flat fee for the right to transport passengers to and from the airport. Drivers kept the money they received for each fare, providing them with the opportunity for profit or loss, depending on how much they chose to work and which rides they chose to accept. Drivers could work when they wanted and could accept or decline rides.

The union argued that the drivers were subject to extensive rules about how they operated, including what they wore, the communication system they used, background check and training requirements, and the appearance and seating arrangements in their vehicles. These requirements, however, were not imposed by the franchisor, which then contracted with the individual drivers. Rather, these requirements were imposed by the state-run DFW Airport.

The Board recognized the important principle that requiring compliance with state- or customer-issued requirements is not the kind of control examined in a Right to Control analysis. Although the DFW Airport’s requirements were extensive, the franchisor’s insistence that its independent contractor drivers follow those rules did not turn the drivers into the franchisor’s employees. That’s an important point for businesses to remember when they enter into independent contractor arrangements.

So where does that leave us? A million dead end streets and every time I thought I’d got it made, it seemed the taste was not so sweet.

The test keeps changing, depending on which political party controls the Board. For now, we’re back to a common law Right to Control Test when determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee under the NLRA.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

01.10.19

by Todd Lebowitz

Five Easy New Years’ Resolutions for Companies That Use Independent Contractors

new years resolutions

Now that the hangover has worn off and the calories have not, it’s time for 2019 New Years’ Resolutions. I know you didn’t ask for help, but you also didn’t not ask.

Here are some suggestions for those of you whose companies rely on independent contractors:

Do you have one of those doorbells you can answer from anywhere? So do I. That’s because we’re cautious (syn., paranoid). Be similarly cautious that your non-legal, non-HR co-workers in management might retain independent contractors without your knowledge. Unleash your inner Anita Ward and make them Ring Your Bell. Set up a gatekeeper system that requires everyone to go through you before they can retain a non-employee worker. But don’t aim little cameras at their desks or you will lose friends.
Update your Independent Contractor Agreements, even if you haven’t been sued yet. I am reminded of the time Bart Simpson exclaimed, “This is the worst day of my life!” and the wise yogi, Homer, responded helpfully, “–the worst day of your life so far.” (Here’s the clip.) Be prepared for if/when you are sued. Use the contract to highlight the facts that support independent contractor status. Be prepared.
Don’t walk slowly in airports. This is (arguably) not directly related to the use of independent contractors, but it is important nonetheless because it drives everyone bonkers when people do it.
Include arbitration clauses with class action waivers. In an alternative universe, your company has been sued by all of your independent contractors in a class action. In your reality, the contractor’s requirement to go at it alone in arbitration convinces your contractor that it’s not worth the effort to sue you, making you — who inserted the arbitration clause — the hero!
Try this exercise: Do a simple self-audit. Check your company’s list of 1099 recipients for 2018 and see how many are individuals with SSNs, rather than entities with EINs. A long list with the names of a lot of individuals may be a sign that there are some independent contractor issues. That little exercise won’t burn off a single cookie, but it’s nonetheless a simple way to try to get a sense of how many independent contractors your business may have. The number is often greater than people realize.

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2019!

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, Philadelphia on Feb. 26, or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

12.13.18

by Todd Lebowitz

What It Means to “Suffer” in California, Independent Contractor Version

suffer or permit to work California

This article describes how gestures that are common in the U.S. can have very different meanings abroad. For example, the “ok” finger gesture is a vulgar bodily reference in Brazil, Germany, and Russia. (Not ok!) The thumbs up gesture in Greece or the Middle East can mean “up yours!” The University of Texas’s “hook ‘em horns” gesture in Italy means you’ve been cuckolded — your wife is cheating on you.

Same thing, different meaning.

To employers, California often feels like a foreign country. It has some of the most employee-friendly laws in the nation, creating migraines for multi-state employers. When it comes to interpreting legal phrases, California lives up to its reputation, especially in the Employee vs. Independent Contractor context.

Today we look at California’s definition of “employ” as it relates to determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

California’s wage and hour laws are set forth in the state’s Industrial Wage Orders, a bulky set of directives that set the rules for minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, and various record keeping requirements for California employers. These rules apply only to employees, not independent contractors, but the test for determining Who Is My Employee? in California is different than under any federal law.

California’s Industrial Wage Orders use the same language to define “employ” as used in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). But fittingly, the Republic of California applies a different meaning to the same phrase.

California’s wage and hour laws provide three alternative definitions for “employ”: (1) to exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions, (2) to suffer or permit to work, or (3) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.

The FLSA also defines “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work.”

On Monday, we described how the FLSA’s “suffer or permit” standard is applied when determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

Today’s post describes California’s test for the same phrase. It’s different. Hook ‘em horns.

Historically, California courts have rejected the federal interpretation of “suffer or permit” as not being broad enough. California courts interpret the phrase more literally. If you permit someone to work, that person is likely your employee.

In April 2018, California’s Supreme Court set up a test that cemented that expansive interpretation into law.

In Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that, to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contract, an ABC Test must be used.

An ABC Test sets a higher bar than a Right to Control Test or an Economic Realities Test. It also sets a higher bar than California’s S.G. Borello test, which is the hybrid Right to Control/Economic Realities Test that California had been using since 1989 to answer the Employee vs. Independent Contractor question.

California’s ABC Test starts with the presumption that, for claims covered under California wage orders, every worker is an employee. Then, to prove otherwise, the business retaining that worker must prove (all 3):

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and

(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and

Fail just one part, and the worker is an employee under California wage and hour law. This new test is even stricter than most other states’ ABC Tests, which usually include two ways that Part B can be satisfied.

As of now, the Dynamex test applies only to claims brought under California wage orders, we think. These claims generally include minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest break claims. So far, this test does not appear to apply to claims such as failure to reimburse expenses or failure to provide employee benefits.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

12.10.18

by Todd Lebowitz

Pain, Humiliation & Self-Pity: How Does the Definition of “Employ” Relate to Independent Contractor Misclassification?

Suffer or Permit to Work FLSA Definition of Employ

According to the New World Encyclopedia, examples of “suffering” include pain, illness, disability, hunger, poverty, grief, hatred, frustration, heartbreak, guilt, humiliation, anxiety, loneliness, self-pity, and death.

According to federal wage and hour law, “suffer” means employment.

Ouch. Happy Monday.

One of the many problems with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — the federal law that sets minimum wage and overtime standards — is that it’s archaic, outdated, old. It was passed in 1938. Before Hitler invaded Poland. Before the first Captain America comic book. Even before the invention of the Slinky.

In 1938, Mick Jagger wasn’t even born yet. (But Betty White was 16.)

The language used in the FLSA reflects a different era. In the definitions section of the Act, “employ” includes “to suffer or permit to work.” What exactly does that mean? At the time it was written, what did Congress intend for it to mean? And what does it mean now, in the modern economy, especially when trying to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor?

According to the FLSA regulations, if “the employer knows or has reason to believe that [the individual] is continuing to work,” then the time is working time. It’s employment. Even work that is “not requested” is work time if the employer permitted the work to be done.

When asking the question, Who Is My Employee?, this broad definition presents a challenge. As the Supreme Court has recognized, this definition is broader than the ordinary “common law” definition of employment, which looks at the extent of control the employer exercises (or has the right to exercise) over the worker. That’s the Right to Control Test, which is discussed in more detail here.

Because the definition of “employ” is different under the FLSA than under most other employment laws, the test for determining Who Is My Employee? is different too.

The FLSA uses an Economic Realities Test to determine whether a worker is an employee (as compared to an independent contractor).

The Economic Realities Test is expressed slightly differently by different federal courts but, in general, the test asks whether the worker is economically reliant on the potential employer to earn a living. If economically reliant, the worker is likely an employee. If the worker has other sources of income or is business for himself/herself, the worker is more likely an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Economic Realities Test is described in more detail here.

So that’s how the federal courts interpret the “suffer or permit to work” language in the FLSA. But to keep things interesting, California’s wage and hour laws use the same “suffer or permit” language in its state law definition of “employ,” but California interprets that phrase differently and imposes a different test. Same standard, different test.

As we will discuss in Thursday’s post, California’s alternative interpretation of that same phrase can lead to very different results when evaluating whether someone is an employee or independent contractor.

It’s California’s definition — more than the federal definition — that is more likely to cause pain, illness, disability, hunger, poverty, grief, hatred, frustration, heartbreak, guilt, humiliation, anxiety, loneliness, or self-pity. To the Golden State’s credit, though, probably not death. Good job, California.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

2018_Web100Badge

11.26.18

by Todd Lebowitz

A Christmas Poem: ‘Twas the Night Before an Independent Contractor Misclassification Ruling

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the nation,
Plaintiffs’ lawyers were alleging independent contractor misclassification;

The businesses’ owners hung by their lawyers with care,
In hopes they could prove that all claims were threadbare;

The workers were all independent contractors, we said,
But the plaintiff was claiming to be an employee instead.

Contracts were reviewed; deposition transcripts were read,
And visions of a dismissal entry danced in our heads.

The judge in her robe, and I in my suit,
Feeling confident our side could win this dispute—

We argued that the facts proved no right to control;
None of the workers were on the payroll.

They could bring their own tools and could hire assistants;
They had formed LLCs and had other means for subsistence.

They only accepted the jobs they desired;
They never were hired. No application required.

We felt pretty good that when the facts were applied,
The judge would agree that no contractors were misclassified.

We filed our motion for summary judgment and waited.
The ruling was issued, and we all were elated.

The court weighed the factors. Nothing was missed.
The workers were contractors. Case dismissed.

Thank you, dear readers. I hope you like what I write.
Happy Christmas (and Hanukkah) to all, and to all a good night!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

11.08.18

by Todd Lebowitz

Preview of 2021? New Bill Would Revoke Arbitration Agreements, Raise Stakes for Independent Contractor vs. Employee Disputes

Independent contractor misclassification epic systems congress Regardless of your politics, I think we can all agree that the best part of Election Day being over is that there will be no more political ads for a while. You know what I mean: “Candidate A hates you and your family and supports legislation to tax you into bankruptcy. I’m Candidate B and I approve this message.” Or, “Candidate B hates you and your family and supports criminals and gangs. I’m Candidate A and I approve this message.” Finally and mercifully, that’s going to end for a while.

So let’s look ahead to 2020, when another vicious round of political ads will be unleashed upon your television screen, punishing all who have not yet cut the cord.

With the Democrats taking control of the House, and with several key Republican seats expected to be in play in 2020, a Democratic presidential win in two years could mean that the Democrats enter 2021 in control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch.

A bill recently introduced by prominent Democrats provides a hint of what would happen to recent wins for businesses in the areas of employee arbitration agreements and class action waivers.

H.R. 7109, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, would prohibit class action waivers in employment contracts and would prohibit agreements to arbitrate future claims. The proposed law would roll back the Supreme Court’s recent Epic Systems decision and shift the balance of workplace power back toward employees.

According to a study cited in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Epic Systems, about 65% of companies with more than 1,000 employees have mandatory arbitration agreements. These contracts would become void.

The bill would also increase the stakes for businesses that use independent contractors. If employee arbitration agreements and class action waivers were unenforceable, then the determination of Independent Contractor vs. Employee becomes even more important. A misclassified contractor (who is deemed to be an employee) could then bring class action claims in court, rather than being restricted by contract to seeking an individual remedy through arbitration.

The bill has no chance of passage in the current Congress, but a tsunami of pro-worker legislation may be coming after the next couple of years.

Meanwhile, enjoy the resumption of TV ads about erectile dysfunction and drugs that you should ask your doctor about even side effects include rare incurable cancers and in some cases death. These are the ads we know and love.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.29.18

by Todd Lebowitz

G-L-O-R-I-A! California Court says to use different tests for different IC misclassification claims

California independent contractor misclassification tests

If someone were to ask whether you like the song, “Gloria,” you’d be right to ask, “Which version?”

There’s the version written by Van Morrison and recorded by his band Them, later covered by Patti Smith, The Doors, and a gaggle of others. That’s the version that goes, “G-L-O-R-I-A, Gloooooria!” (I’m gonna shout it out every day.)

Then there’s the version recorded by Laura Branigan in 1982, originally written in Italian by Umberto Tozzi. (Fun fact!) You know that one — “You’re always on the run now. Running after somebody, you gotta get him somehow.”

Of course the right answer is that you prefer the first version, but my point is that there are multiple versions of “Gloria.” Same name, different song.

This is the same approach California courts seem to be taking with the state’s test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee. Same question, different tests. Many of you will recall the April 2018 Dynamex decision, in which the California Supreme Court adopted a strict ABC Test for determining whether a worker is an employee under California’s Industrial Wage Orders.

But the Dynamex decision did not address whether the new ABC Test would be used to determine whether someone is a contractor or an employee under California’s other state labor laws. Now we know.

The answer, according to a California Court of Appeal decision last week, is that there’s room for both “G-L-O-R-I-A” and “You’re always on the run now.” (You’re welcome, Laura Branigan.)

In last week’s case, called Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, the court considered an eight-count complaint brought by a taxicab driver who had been treated as an independent contractor. The driver claimed he should have been treated as an employee and that various state laws, which apply only to employees, were not followed. The court ruled that different tests apply to different claims.

The Court ruled that the claims brought under California’s Industrial Wage Orders had to be evaluated under the Dynamex ABC Test and, for these claims, the driver had to be considered an employee. The claims subject to the Dynamex test were the claims alleging unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, and the unfair competition (UCL) claims arising out of the wage order violations.

On the other hand, the driver’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, waiting time penalties, and the UCL claims stemming from these allegations had to be evaluated under the more traditional S.G. Borello balancing test, which includes elements of a Right to Control Test but incorporates other factors too, making it a hybrid test. Under the S.G. Borello standard, the Court ruled that the driver was properly classified as an independent contractor. (The plaintiff alleged failure to pay overtime too. Typically, overtime claims are governed by the Industrial Wage Orders, but the overtime rules do not apply to taxicab drivers.)

For those who like score cards, here is a list showing (a) the claims that were filed, and (b) which test must be used to determine Independent Contractor vs. Employee under each claim, according to the Garcia case. I have color-coded the claims because it looks pretty:

1. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Lab. Code, §§ 923 [employees may organize], 6310 [retaliation for an OSHA complaint], 6400 [duty to provide a safe work environment], 1102.5 [whistleblower protection].) S.G. Borello balancing test

2. Unpaid wages under the wage order. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11090.) Dynamex ABC Test

3. Failure to pay minimum wage. (Lab. Code, §§ 1182.12 [minimum wage], 1194 [right of action], 1194.2 [liquidated damages], 1197 [duty to pay minimum wage].) Dynamex ABC Test

4. Failure to pay overtime. (Lab. Code, §§ 510 [overtime], 1194 [right of action].) – Not applicable

5. Failure to provide meal and rest breaks. (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7 [rest periods], 512 [meal breaks].) Dynamex ABC Test

6. Failure to furnish accurate wage statements. (Lab. Code, §§ 226 [wage statements], 226.3 [civil penalties], 2699 [PAGA penalties].) Dynamex ABC Test

7. Waiting time penalties. (Lab. Code, §§ 201−202 [wages and leave due upon departure], 203 [penalties].) S.G. Borello balancing test

8. Unfair competition (UCL), based on the foregoing violations. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; Lab. Code, § 2699 [PAGA penalties].) Dynamex ABC Test for the alleged violations of the wage order; S.G. Borello balancing test for the other claims

That’s the state of the law at this moment, but of course the California Supreme Court could weigh in again later as to whether S.G. Borello should still be used at all.

The explanation given in the Garcia case, though, for why the different tests should be used for different claims makes perfect sense. The definition of employee in Dynamex is broader than in the other statutes, as the California Supreme Court explained in the Dynamex decision.

So there you have it. Different definition of employee, different tests.

Shout it out all night!

Shout it out every day!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.25.18

by Todd Lebowitz

New Rule May Clear Up ‘Employee vs Contractor’ Test under FLSA, But Not Quite Yet

DOL joint employment

New regulations may soon be proposed to redefine “employee” under federal wage and hour law. In a recent interview with Bloomberg BNA, Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta hinted that the DOL is working on a new regulation that would more definitively speak to who is an employee and who is an independent contractor.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wage and overtime for employees, does not apply to independent contractors. That’s one of the reasons it matters whether someone is classified as an employee of a contractor. Contractors are not entitled to a minimum wage or overtime under federal law.

The FLSA was passed in the 1930s and does not fit the modern gig economy. Secretary Acosta appears committed to modernizing the regulations, which would bring much needed clarity to the question of who is an employee and who is an independent contractor.

In terms of priorities, the DOL appears likely to address the definition of “joint employment” first.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has initiated formal rulemaking procedures that would result in a new regulation defining joint employment more narrowly under federal labor law. The DOL has indicated it has plans to follow suit, using rulemaking procedures to seek a new regulation redefining “joint employment” under the FLSA. We can probably expect to see a new proposed FLSA regulation redefining “joint employment” by early 2019.

Based on Secretary Acosta’s comments to Bloomberg BNA, it seems likely that the DOL will turn it’s attention to the Independent Contractor vs Employee conundrum next.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.22.18

by Todd Lebowitz

Is this weird trick the key to defeating independent contractor claims? (Hahahahahaha. No.)

Weird trick to defeat independent contractor claims Jani-King

As everyone with an internet connection now knows, articles promising “one weird trick” to solve some real-world problem are everywhere. These articles are annoying. (It’s called clickbait.) You open up the article, and the “weird trick” is usually something you already knew anyway. Or the weird trick just doesn’t work.

So what’s the “weird trick” here?

Requiring independent contractors to form corporate entities. Then you have a business-to-business contract, not employment. Right?

Ok, it’s not weird at all. Lots of companies use this approach.

But does it work? Not necessarily.

Let’s consider the issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA requires employees to be paid a minimum wage and overtime (unless there’s an exemption) and requires employers to keep certain kinds of pay records.

The test for determining whether someone is an employee under the FLSA is Ye Olde Economic Realities Test.

Dear Reader, hold onto your seat, because we’re about to see this test in action!

Can you defeat independent contractor misclassification claims by requiring workers to form legal entities? Let’s see…

A federal appeals court recently considered a dispute involving Jani-King and its franchise model for providing janitorial services. Under Jani-King’s business model, the individuals who provide cleaning services are not treated by Jani-King as its employees. Rather, Jani-King requires that anyone who wants to provide janitorial services under the Jani-King name must form a legal entity, like an LLC. Then Jani-King enters into a franchise agreement with the LLC, and the LLC/franchisee provides the cleaning services. There is no job offer or employment agreement between Jani-King and the individuals performing the services. It’s all treated like a business-to-business, franchisor-franchisee relationship.

The Department of Labor (DOL) is questioning the legitimacy of this model. The DOL began an investigation and then filed a lawsuit, claiming that Jani-King’s franchisees are really Jani-King’s employees under the FLSA, and Jani-King therefore had to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements, as well as its overtime and minimum wage rules.

The reason Jani-King’s “one weird trick” doesn’t necessarily work is because to determine whether someone is an employee under the FLSA, it doesn’t matter what you call the worker. You can call the worker a contractor or a franchisee, but using that tag doesn’t mean the worker is not an employee under the FLSA. That’s a legal determination made using the Economic Realities Test.

In this case, the trial court judge in Oklahoma had dismissed the DOL’s case, ruling that Jani-King’s contracts were with entities, not individuals, so there could not be an employment relationship. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, said that’s not true.

The Court of Appeals ruled that a six-part Economic Realities Test must be used to determine whether the individual franchisees who performed the janitorial work should be considered employees under the FLSA. Under the Economic Realities Test, a court must examine the economic realities of the relationship, not merely rely on the parties’ labels.

In the Tenth Circuit (which covers Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming), here are the factors to consider under the Economic Realities Test:

1) The degree of control exerted by the alleged employer over the worker;

2) The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss;

3) The worker’s investment in the business;

4) The permanence of the working relationship;

5) The degree of skill required to perform the work; and

6) The extent to which the work is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.

The not-so-weird trick of requiring workers to set up a legal entity does not necessarily work. It can be helpful, but only if the facts show that the entity is not economically reliant on the other party. The facts matter, not the labels.

This case is headed back to the trial court for some fact-finding to determine how these six factors play out.

In the meantime, remember that “one weird trick” to solve some real-world problem is probably not weird at all, and it may or may not work. But it may arouse your curiosity and cause you read the article. Here, Jani-King’s one weird trick aroused the DOL’s curiosity, which is not something a business should want to do.

Who Is My Employee?

Exploring Independent Contractor Misclassification & Joint Employment Issues

Tag Archives: Independent Contractor vs. Employee

What is the Test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee? (Jan. 2019)

Subscribe to Blog via Email

NLRB Changes Independent Contractor Test (Again). Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Five Easy New Years’ Resolutions for Companies That Use Independent Contractors

Subscribe to Blog via Email

What It Means to “Suffer” in California, Independent Contractor Version

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Pain, Humiliation & Self-Pity: How Does the Definition of “Employ” Relate to Independent Contractor Misclassification?

Subscribe to Blog via Email

A Christmas Poem: ‘Twas the Night Before an Independent Contractor Misclassification Ruling

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Preview of 2021? New Bill Would Revoke Arbitration Agreements, Raise Stakes for Independent Contractor vs. Employee Disputes

Subscribe to Blog via Email

G-L-O-R-I-A! California Court says to use different tests for different IC misclassification claims

Subscribe to Blog via Email

New Rule May Clear Up ‘Employee vs Contractor’ Test under FLSA, But Not Quite Yet

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Is this weird trick the key to defeating independent contractor claims? (Hahahahahaha. No.)

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this: