EU Court Expands Penalties for Independent Contractor Misclassification

UK england independent contractor misclassification

Crikey! Across the pond, worker misclassification is a hot topic, and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has turned up the heat on companies using independent contractors.

In a closely watched case, the ECJ ruled that a commission-only sales contractor who was  misclassified was entitled to receive payment for four weeks of annual holiday pay for the entirety of his engagement, 13 years, covering 1999 to 2012.  The case is King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd., decided 29/11/2017 (US translation: 11/29/2017).

In the US, back pay in misclassification cases is often limited to two or three years. Statutes of limitation generally limit how far back a worker can go when seeking a recovery. But what about Europe?

Let’s see. The European Court acknowledged that UK law allows four weeks of annual leave and does not allow unused weeks to be carried over to the following year. Ok, that’s a good start and suggests back pay should be limited.

So when a salesman like Mr Conley King alleges that he was denied four weeks of annual leave for a 13-year period, shouldn’t the recovery be limited? The most he could ever have is four weeks, right? In the US, the recovery likely would be limited, either because a court would apply the no-carryover rule or because the statute of limitations would limit the recovery to two or three years of lost leave.

Not so under UK and EU law, the European Court ruled.

The court awarded the salesman pay for four weeks of paid leave for all 13 years. That’s a 42-week paid vacation. Call my travel agent, honey. We’re going around the world!

The court ruled that, while a UK business may prevent carryover of unused holiday leave for its workers, its failure to offer holiday leave required a different result. Since the business prevented the worker from using any of his four weeks of leave in each of his 13 years, the business was now on the hook for the full four weeks for all 13 years that it deprived the worker of his paid holiday leave.

The case now goes back to a UK Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, the decision raises the stakes on European companies who misclassify workers as independent contractors. The lookback period for lost benefits may now be unlimited, with statutes of limitation being ignored.

US companies with overseas independent contractors should pay close attention to those relationships. If the independent contractor status of those relationships is challenged, the business may be liable for substantially more past benefits than previously thought. That may mean rough seas ahead.

© 2017 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.

 

New Year’s Resolution: 5 Tips to Limit Risks of an Independent Contractor Misclassification Claim

new years resolutions independent contractor misclassification 2018You know deep down you’re not really going to run a triathlon or learn Mandarin in 2018, so how about a New Year’s Resolution that’s more realistic? Here are 5 things businesses can do to limit their risks of an independent contractor misclassification finding:

  1. Review and edit contracts. Independent Contractor Agreements should be customized for the specific retention, highlighting actual facts that would be helpful in opposing a challenge to independent contractor status.
  2. Review and modify facts. Almost every independent contractor relationship can be strengthened by finding ways you can give up control or memorialize ways that you do not ever intent to exercise control. Does it really matter what times of the day your contractor works? If you set hours and don’t need to, change that fact. Then memorialize it in the contract.
  3. Use a Vendor Qualification Questionnaire. Qualify your contractors before retaining them. Make them represent to you that they are really in business for themselves, have other clients, are not economically dependent on getting work from you, etc. These representations can be useful if the contractor — or the government — ever challenges the contractor’s classification by claiming the relationship is really employment.
  4. Assign a gatekeeper. You may have contractors that you don’t even know about because managers in parts of the business have retained outside help rather than ask permission to hire new employees. Create a process that requires managers to obtain permission from a particular person before retaining any outside labor.
  5. Be proactive. Examine the facts and circumstances of your independent contractor relationships now. Know where you stand on the risk scale. Then assess how you can make changes to better protect your business against a claim of independent contractor misclassification. There are almost always steps that can be taken proactively to limit your risks. Be ready.

These are steps every business can take either internally, or with a little outside help. You’ve probably heard Ben Franklin’s axiom, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Ol’ Ben was giving fire safety advice to his fellow Philadelphians in 1736, but the advice holds true as well when evaluating independent contractor relationships in 2018. Take steps now to reduce risks, and place your business in a better position to extinguish any claims of misclassification.

© 2017 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.

Can You Pay a Bonus to Your Independent Contractors?

“I want my money!” — Pearl, in The Landlord.

If you haven’t seen this Will Ferrell short video from 1997, take a look. Pretty funny.

Everyone wants their money. Method of payment is one of many factors used to evaluate whether an independent contractor is properly classified or instead is an employee.

Payment by the hour is permitted, but this method of payment more closely resembles employment. Payment by the project, regardless of time spent working, is most appropriate for an independent contractor relationship.

Other methods will do, though, and a fixed payment by the day, the week, or the month can be workable too. Method of payment is just one of many factors in the analysis of Independent Contractor vs. Employee.

Incentive pay for contractors is permitted too. Some examples of bonuses that may be appropriate include:

  • Incentive for early completion of a project;
  • Incentive for achieving certain project-based goals;
  • Incentive for accepting additional gigs.

The more closely the incentive can be tied to the project, the better. If properly classified, independent contractors are in business for themselves, and project-based retentions are most indicative of legitimate independent contractor relationships. Similarly, incentives should be project-based whenever possible.

One final tip: Terminology matters. “Bonus” sounds like something an employee would receive. Try offering “incentive payments” instead.

© 2017 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.

Using Independent Contractors Saved This Hospital an Arm and a Leg! (Really, Just a Leg)

leg broken independent contractor vs employee liabilityToday we attempt to answer a medical mystery: If I have to get my leg amputated because a doctor misdiagnosed me at the hospital, can I sue the hospital for malpractice?

Seems like an easy “yes,” right? Not so fast.

Suppose the doctor was an independent contractor, and suppose the hospital is a public institution. Those were the facts presented to the Supreme Court of Wyoming in a recent case (which also serves as a nice reminder that if you are admitted to the hospital with numbness and cramping in the legs and an “inability to walk,” it would be a good idea to get a vascular consult — assuming you want to keep your leg).

The Wyoming Supreme Court had to interpret a state statute that limited the liability of public hospitals to acts by its employees, except if a hospital extended its liability on purpose through an insurance policy. The hospital here had an insurance policy, but the policy did not reference coverage for acts by independent contractors.

The Court ruled that because the negligence (correction: alleged) “alleged” negligence was by a doctor who was seeing hospital patients as an independent contractor, the hospital was immune from liability for any negligence by the doctor.

Our fearless hero, the amputee, would have to sue the doctor instead. He could not sue the hospital. The case does not address how much malpractice insurance the doctor had, but I would bet my unamputated left leg that it was quite a bit less coverage than the hospital had.

The facts in this case are fairly specific, so I wouldn’t draw a lot of generalizations here. The case required the interpretation of a Wyoming statute and a specific insurance contract.

The case does serve as a reminder, though, of one of the many benefits of having work performed by legitimate independent contractors. The hospital would have been subject to liability if the doctor was an employee, but it faced no liability because the doctor was an independent contractor.

The key to victory, of course, is having a legitimate independent contractor relationship. As we have discussed many times in this blog, there are often disputes over whether a so-called independent contractor is properly classified or should really be considered an employee.

Courts will look to the facts of the relationship to determine Who Is My Employee? and will not just rely on what the parties call the relationship or the fact that a 1099 was issued instead of a W-2.

Depending on which law is being applied, the test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee may be a Right to Control Test, an Economic Realities Test, an ABC Test, or some other hybrid or variation. It’s important to understand whether your independent contractor relationships would hold up to scrutiny, and it’s important to conduct that review before you get sued.

Proper classification in this case meant the difference between zero liability and having to pay the going rate for an amputated leg.

© 2017 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.

 

Here’s a Tip a Cartoon Cat Would Love: Try This Edit to Your Independent Contractor Agreements

Independent contractor misclassification cat“Whenever he gets in a fix, he reaches into his bag of tricks!” Yes, boys and girls, I am talking about Felix the Cat, whose magical bag of tricks could be transformed to get him out of any treacherous situation. Don’t you wish you had one of those?

Well, I won’t share mine, but I can offer this tip, which may help you avoid a treacherous situation.

This weekend I was reading a California decision on independent contractor misclassification. (I do other, more fun things in my free time too, so don’t make fun. Ok, you should make fun a little.) While analyzing Right to Control factors, the court ruled that the worst fact for the business was that it could terminate the contractor at will. The ability to terminate a relationship at will, the court ruled, was the “ultimate” form of control! Really? I agree it’s a factor among many, but the “ultimate factor”? Come on.

Anyway, this problem is easily avoided with some creativity. Allow me to reach into my bag of tricks.

If your relationship with a contractor is for an indefinite time period and you rely on work orders to describe each project, consider a one-year term instead. No, not a one-year term with auto-renewals unless the parties give notice. That’s too close to an indefinite term. Allow the one year term to expire. But…

Add a provision that, after the one-year term expires, if you offer a new work order and if the contractor accepts a new work order, then acceptance of that new work order constitutes an agreement to renew the independent contractor agreement for another year.

This variation on the auto-renewal approach requires the parties to take an affirmative act to renew the agreement — the offer and acceptance of a new work order. And this approach also allows you to maintain that the relationship with the contractor is project-by-project (one work order at a time).

The main agreement does not have to be terminable at will. No need for that. If each project is defined by a work order and you’re not satisfied, then don’t offer any new work orders. The agreement itself does not have to be terminated.

If your independent contractor’s tasks are not defined by work orders, then this solution might not work for you. But if your contractor picks up work one work order at a time, this can be a helpful little maneuver.

No guarantees here, but I like this approach better than the indefinite agreement. Contracts of indefinite duration are definitely a negative factor in the Independent Contractor vs. Employee analysis, even though most courts would not be as fixated on that fact as this particular court was.

Now I am going to turn my bag of tricks into a helicopter.

© 2017 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.

Are Prostitutes Employees or Independent Contractors?

D019E4C0-7B51-4597-BA1A-0C84C01105CF.jpegThere’s a headline I never expected to write. But apparently this is an issue in the Great State of Nevada.

I subscribe to a service that alerts me when new lawsuits are filed involving independent contractor misclassification disputes. This gem arrived in my inbox last week:

Sierra National Corp. dba The Love Ranch is suing the Nevada unemployment department. Apparently the State ruled that the Love Ranch’s lovely ladies were employees, not independent contractors. The Ranchers filed a lawsuit asking the State to open its files and show how it reached that conclusion. Here’s the description of the case:

Mandamus and public records. Petitioner, which operates a legal brothel, seeks to compel respondent to provide public records relating to respondent’s investigation and decision that the brothel’s prostitutes are employees, not independent contractors. Respondent agency’s blanket denial of the petitioner’s public-records request violates the state public records law.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall listening to that dispute. I imagine it went something like this:

State: Your prostitutes are employees, not independent contractors.

Love Ranch: Why?

State: Well, you know, the Right to Control Test.

Love Ranch: Seriously?! We do NOT tell them how to… Never mind.

© 2017 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.

 

Don’t Wear Pajamas to Work: Be Careful Using “Statutory Minimum” Workers Comp Clauses in Subcontractor Agreements

Pajamas - Independent Contractor Agreements and Workers Compensation ClausesHave you ever had the dream where you show up at work or school in your pajamas or underwear? You’re exposed and embarrassed in the dream, and you can’t figure out why you forgot to put on regular clothes, right? (Please don’t tell me I’m the only one who’s had this dream. Please?)

You may be living this dream inadvertently in your vendor or subcontractor agreements. (And this is not what people mean when they say, “I’m living the dream!”)

Here’s the problem:

It’s commonplace in vendor and subcontractor agreements to include a section requiring insurance. You might require $1 million in commercial liability coverage, for example. Insurance clauses usually (and should) require the vendor or subcontractor to carry workers’ compensation coverage too. But sometimes these clauses are written in a way that may leave you exposed. Here’s an example:

“Subcontractor agrees to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its workers in the minimum amount required by law.”

You’re good, right? Depends on the state — and the circumstances.

The “minimum amount required by law” may be none.

First, if the worker retained by your vendor or subcontractor is its independent contractor (and not its employee), then there is probably no coverage required at all. State laws impose standards for determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee, but usually there is no requirement to provide any coverage to a true independent contractor.

Second, even if the worker is your vendor’s employee, the “minimum amount required by law” in the state might be none:

In Texas, for example, workers’ compensation coverage is generally optional. The minimum amount required by law is none.

Several states do not require employers to carry coverage unless they have a minimum number of employees. According to this chart from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), an advocacy organization for small businesses, the following states require employers to provide workers’ compensation coverage only if they have at least this number of employees:

VA – required if 2 or more
GA, NC, WI – required if 3 or more
RI, SC – required if 4 or more
MS, MO – required if 5 or more

Some states have different requirements for construction and non-construction businesses:

NM – construction: required if 1 or more; non-construction: required if 3 or more
FL – construction: required if 1 or more; non-construction: required if 4 or more
TN – construction: required if 1 or more; non-construction: required if 5 or more

In some states, such as Ohio and New York, workers’ compensation might not be required for sole proprietors who have no employees other than themselves.

So what does all this mean for your agreements?

1. Depending on how your contract is written, you might be wearing pajamas to work. In other words, your agreement might leave you exposed, inadvertently, since the minimum amount of required workers’ compensation coverage for your vendor or subcontractor’s employees might be “none.”

2. Please don’t rely on the thresholds I have listed above. I have not examined the workers’ compensation laws state-by-state and I am merely listing state law summaries from the web. I have not checked these for accuracy. Check the laws in your state and check with legal counsel.

The point here is that the state-minimum required amount of coverage might be “none.” Things can go south for your business in a hurry if your vendor or subcontractor has insufficient coverage. If one of their workers is severely injured, the worker may bring a lawsuit against your business as an alleged joint employer. If the injury is severe enough and there is no workers’ compensation coverage, liability could be in the millions.

Keep this risk in mind when drafting the insurance sections of your vendor and subcontractor agreements. Draft carefully, and be sure you are fully covered.

© 2017 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.