Dead or Alive? Contractor Dispute Leads to Important Ohio Decision on Agency Deference

An author of romance novels died in 2020, committing suicide after online bullying. Or so it seemed. But a few days ago, Susan Meachen posted on Facebook to say she was back. Not in a risen-from-the-grave sort of way. She says she faked her own death and is very much alive. The story has been covered by CNN and BBC, and I don’t know whether anyone has yet figured out whether Meachen died or someone is now posting under her name.

One thing that seems more clearly dead, though, is the legal principle of agency deference in Ohio. This important decision arose out of a contractor dispute.

In a 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that under Ohio law, the judiciary is never [italics in original] required to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of the law, even if the statute is ambiguous. Only the judiciary has the authority to interpret the law for purposes of a judicial proceeding.

The Court held that an agency’s interpretation of the law is merely one view that a court may consider. The Court also stressed that an agency’s interpretation of common words is entirely irrelevant since courts are well equipped to interpret common words. Deference to an agency’s interpretation will depend on how persuasive a court finds the agency’s interpretation to be. A court might be more likely to defer if there is an ambiguity over a technical matter over which the agency has expertise, but even then, deference is never required.

I have attached an annotated copy of the opinion.

Here are some excerpts. These are quotes:

  • The judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law. As we explain, an agency interpretation is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court’s own independent judgment as to what the law is.
  • First, it is never mandatory for a court to defer to the judgment of an administrative agency. Under our system of separation of powers, it is not appropriate for a court to turn over its interpretative authority to an administrative agency..
  • Now assume that a court does find ambiguity and determines to consider an administrative interpretation along with other tools of interpretation. The weight, if any, the court assigns to the administrative interpretation should depend on the persuasive power of the agency’s interpretation and not on the mere fact that it is being offered by an administrative agency. A court may find agency input informative; or the court may find the agency position unconvincing. What a court may not do is outsource the interpretive project to a coordinate branch of government.

The case arose when an engineering firm applied for an engineering license in Ohio. Seems uneventful, except the firm listed an independent contractor as its full-time manager. Ohio law requires a firm to identify a responsible full-time manager to receive a license. The Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors denied the license on the grounds that a full-time manager could not be an independent contractor. The Board said that a manager had to be a W2 employee.

But the statute requires only that there be a full-time manager. It doesn’t say who can be a manager. The Board determined that an independent contractor could not be a “full-time manager” because independent contractors (if properly classified) are not controlled by their client. In other words, how could the firm be managed by someone it cannot control?

That’s a great question from a practical standpoint. If the contractor is properly classified, it might be a terrible idea to designate an independent contractor as your firm’s full-time manager. But that doesn’t mean it’s prohibited by the licensing statute.

The Ohio Supreme Court explained that the statute requires the Board (“shall”) to grant a license when a firm identifies a full-time manager and meets the other criteria. The Court ruled that the Board, as an administrative agency, has no right to impose additional requirements that are not in the statute, such as that the full-time manager cannot be an independent contractor.

The Court used this dispute to lay down a marker on an important issue of law — When must a court defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law? In Ohio, the answer is never.

This issue comes up often at the federal level too, and you’ll hear a lot more about this issue following the recent announcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it plans to pass a regulation making non-compete agreements illegal. The FTC probably does not have the legal authority to do that. A law to prohibit non-competes would almost definitely have to come from the legislature, not an executive agency. If the FTC goes through with its plan, the issue is likely to end up in front of a federal court, which is likely to rule that the FTC does not have this authority. The US Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sent signals that it will be less inclined to defer to agencies than in the past, and it would not be surprising to see the US Supreme Court issue a ruling at some point that looks a lot like this Ohio decision.

The bottom line here is that the era of agencies making new law through regulation may be coming to an end. Agencies can interpret ambiguities in statutes, and they can provide more detail about legal requirements when authorized to do so. But they cannot impose new requirements when not specifically authorized to do so. The path taken by the Ohio Supreme Court may be a sign of similar things to come at the federal level.

In terms of typical independent contractor issues, this post is a bit off topic. But the issue is an important one, and it arose out of a contractor dispute, so I just decided to just go for it and write this post, whether it’s what you were expecting or not.

Kind of like Susan Meachen did recently when she posted on Facebook. Or didn’t post. We still don’t really know.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Hands Off! NY Governor Vetoes Independent Contractor Bill

A chess-playing robot took enforcement a bit too seriously at a recent tournament in Moscow. Facing a 9-year old human opponent, the robot grabbed and broke the boy’s index finger when the boy reached toward the board when it was the robot’s turn to move. When you’re a robot, rules are rules.

The robot had been in use for 15 years (and the boy had been in use only 9). Neither robot nor boy had any known history of delinquency, but this sounds like a textbook case of bullying. And there’s video!

In an unrelated matter, New York Governor Kathy Hochul was not going to be bullied by the state legislature into signing a recently passed bill that would have imposed new requirements on the use of individual independent contractors.

Hochul vetoed the proposed Freelance Isn’t Free Act on the grounds that it imposed inappropriate burdens on the NY State Department of Labor. In her veto statement, she wrote that the state DOL “could not implement the legislation effectively” because it required the DOL to oversee private contracts between businesses and non-employees. That’s well outside the DOL’s mission of enforcing labor protections for employees.

The law would have required written contracts with individual freelancers, with various types of mandatory disclosures in each contract.

The proposed law was a statewide version of New York City’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act, which NYC enacted in 2016. A summary of the NYC law is here. In 2017, the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs published an additional set of rules implementing the act and adding new restrictions that were not in the original law.

Because the 2022 legislative session has ended, the NY state assembly cannot override her veto, but the bill could be reintroduced in 2023.

If the assembly wants to try again, it might try another version that does not involve the DOL, since this is not a misclassification bill and is not a matter between employers and employees. For the bill to be effective, it would need a suitable yet aggressive enforcer of the new rules.

I know of a chess-playing robot in Moscow that might be available.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

What to Watch for in 2023: Big Changes May Be Coming for Independent Contractor and Joint Employment Laws

If you google “what to watch for 2023,” you’ll mostly get tips on soon-to-be-released movies and streaming video shows. You’ll get grammatically impossible generic hype like “movies we can’t wait to see” (except the whole point is that you have to wait to see them) and you’ll get grammatically impossible niche hype like “The most anticipated Korean dramas and movies we can’t wait to watch in 2023.”

We won’t peddle hype in this post, and you’ll literally have to wait for all of the things addressed below. But here are five important developments to watch for in 2023.

1. The test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee is likely to change, at least under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Department of Labor proposed a new multi-factor test, and the period for public comment ended December 13. The DOL is likely to roll out a new test in 2023. It will replace the current core factors test described here.

2. The test for Joint Employment is likely to change, at least under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In September, the NLRB proposed a new test for determining when joint employment exists under the NLRA. You can read more here. The public comment period has closed, and we can expect a new test sometime in 2023.

3. The NLRB is likely to rule that independent contractor misclassification, by itself, is an unfair labor practice. The NLRB General Counsel has expressed an intent to reverse the Velox Express decision from 2019, in which the Board ruled that misclassification was not an automatic ULP. More information is here. Now that the Board majority has switched from Republican to Democrat, expect a decision in 2023 that creates an automatic ULP when there’s a finding of worker misclassification.

4. Expect state legislatures to keep changing the tests for Independent Contractor vs. Employee. Some states will try to make it harder to maintain independent contractor status by passing ABC Tests, in either a standard or strict version. A few conservative states may go the other way and adopt the latest version of the Uniform Worker Classification Act proposed by ALEC. The law would create a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain requirements are followed, including having a written contract. Versions of this law have been passed in West Virginia and Louisiana. You can read more here. Expect Oklahoma to be next.

5. Expect significant rulings on California independent contractor law. Several important cases are pending. These include Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5. Oral argument was held in the Ninth Circuit in July 2022. In another case, the California Court of Appeal is considering the legality of Prop 22, the successful ballot measure that helped to protect independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers using app services. Oral argument in that case, Castellanos v. State of California, was held in December 2022.

The law regarding contingent workforce is constantly changing, and 2023 looks to be another year of significant transformation. As always, it will be a good idea to watch these new developments carefully, as they will likely have a significant impact on companies using independent contractors and other contingent workforce arrangements.

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2023!

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

© 2022 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

No Bear Wrestling? Poorly Drafted D.C. Law Turns Contractors Into Employees, Sort Of

According to this article in USA Today, state and local legislatures pass all kinds of strange laws. In Tennessee, you can’t hold office if you’ve been in a duel. In North Carolina, you can’t hold a meeting if you are dressed in costume. In Louisiana, it’s illegal to wrestle a bear.

Other times, legislatures pass laws that make sense, but they do it in a way that’s sloppy or lazy. A recent amendment passed by the D.C. Council falls into this second category.

Like many state and local anti-discrimination laws, the D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. An amendment to the Act, effective 10/1/2022, expanded the law’s protections to most independent contractors. Seems reasonable, right?

But the way the law extends these protections is lazy drafting, and the lazy drafting creates problems for those of us who are careful about preserving the distinctions between employees and independent contractors.

The amendment expands the Act’s coverage by changing the definition of “employee.” Under the amended text, the term “employee” now also includes individuals “working or seeking work as an independent contractor,” as well as unpaid interns. The amendment then excludes some independent contractors from coverage, explaining that an independent contractor for purposes of the Act “does not mean a service vendor who provides a discrete service to an individual customer.”

There are two problems here. First, starting at the end, what does the exception really mean? I presume the exception exists to carve out rideshare and delivery services, but if that’s what they meant, they should have said that. It’s unclear. Maybe some guidance will be issued later.

But the larger problem is the second one, and that’s what I want to focus on here. Instead of amending the law so that it applies to “employees and covered independent contractors,” the law lazily changes the definition of “employee” to say that “the term ‘employee’ includes … an individual working or seeking work as an ‘independent contractor.’”

But the word employee (as everyone commonly understands it) doesn’t include individuals working or seeking work as independent contractors. That’s the whole point of differentiating them by calling them independent contractors.

Let’s try an analogy. If you wanted to expand coverage for a law that applies to police officers so that the same protections applied to fire fighters, you wouldn’t redefine the term “police officers” to “include” fire fighters. You’d say the law applies to police officers and fire fighters.

The same principle applies in every day life. If you went to the ice cream store and ordered vanilla soft serve, you’d be unhappy if the clerk handed you a vanilla-chocolate twist. You’d complain, but the clerk would point you to the sign on the wall that says “We define vanilla to include chocolate.” That’s dumb and would never happen. I think. But I would check twice before ordering soft serve at the D.C. Council cafeteria.

Preserving independent contractor status is already complicated, with so many different state and local tests for determining who is an employee and who is a contractor. We don’t need lazy amendments that define the term “employee” in a way that just includes “independent contractors.” It makes everything more confusing for everyone, especially when it remains important to differentiate between contractors and employees in every other context.

We don’t even need to look beyond D.C. to see how the D.C. Council has messed this up. Let’s compare the amended Human Rights Act to other D.C. laws.

The D.C. unemployment compensation law uses a common law test to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. So does D.C. wage and hour law. The D.C. workers comp law uses a different “relative nature of work test,” but that’s a balancing test too. The point is, under these other D.C. laws, the term “employee” definitely does not include independent contractors, and there’s a way of differentiating which is which.

It’s laudable that the D.C. Council wants to extend anti-discrimination protections to independent contractors. Some state laws do that too. (Federal anti-discrimination laws do not.) But don’t lazily do it by calling independent contractors “employees.” Because they’re not.

At least in D.C. it’s still legal to wrestle a bear.

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

© 2022 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Seattle Trades Nirvana & Ken Griffey for Burdensome New Independent Contractor Law

troll
The Fremont Troll, photo by Sue (CC BY 2.0) modified

Back in the 1990s, Seattle was known for Nirvana and Pearl Jam, Ken Griffey Jr., Microsoft, Frasier (which I could never get into), the emergence of Amazon, and a lot fewer homeless people. The fewer homeless people may have been in part to the Fremont Troll, an 18-foot sculpture erected in 1990 under the Aurora Bridge, where it holds a crushed VW Beetle and would be scary as hell to sleep next to.

The troll’s still there, but Griffey and Frasier are gone and we all know what happened to Nirvana.

Having left the 90s behind, Seattle in 2022 apparently wants to be known instead as a city where it is pretty burdensome to retain independent contractors.

The Seattle City Council passed a law that requires immediate action from all companies that have solo independent contractors working in the city. The Independent Contractor Protections Ordinance, codified at SMC 14.34, took effect Sept. 1.

The rest of this article was originally published as a BakerHostetler Alert, here. Immediate action is needed for companies with solo contractors in Seattle, so read on. All the same helpful info is just below.

The law applies to solo independent contractors who perform any part of their work in Seattle for a commercial hiring entity if the contractor receives or is expected to receive at least $600 in total compensation from the hiring entity during a calendar year. If the hiring party knows or has reason to know that the work is being performed in Seattle, then the law applies, even if the hiring party has no preference as to where the work is performed.

Independent contractors are defined to include individuals and entities consisting of only one person. The law does not apply to workers being treated as employees by a staffing agency or consulting firm.

Commercial hiring entities are defined to include for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Modified rules apply to drivers for transportation network companies, such as ride-share services. There are also exceptions for lawyers and for contractors whose sole relationship to the hiring party is a property rental agreement.

Commercial hiring entities with independent contractors covered under the new law must:

  • Provide a written precontract disclosure to the contractor that includes at least 12 specified categories of information about the engagement. This disclosure must be in a single document in the contractor’s primary language. A model notice is available.
  • Provide written updates before making changes to any of the required information.
  • Provide timely payment consistent with the precontract disclosure terms or a later written contract. If no deadline for payment is specified, then the contractor must be paid no later than 30 days after the work is completed.
  • Provide an itemized, written payment disclosure accompanying each payment. The disclosure must be in a single document, such as a pay stub or invoice, and it must contain information in at least 12 specified categories.
  • Provide a written notice of the contractor’s rights under the new law. The notice must be in English and, if applicable, the contractor’s primary language. A model notice is available.
  • Maintain for three years records that demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
  • Refrain from retaliating against any contractor who asserts rights protected under the new law. Prohibited retaliation includes threatening to report that the contractor is an illegal immigrant. If any adverse action is taken within 90 days of a contractor’s exercise of rights, the law creates a rebuttable presumption that the action was retaliatory.

The precontract disclosure and disclosure of rights must be provided before work begins or, for contractors already providing services, by Sept. 30, 2022.

Penalties for violating this law may include payment of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, civil penalties, other penalties payable to an aggrieved contractor, fines and interest. These penalties are in addition to any other relief available under any other law.

BakerHostetler’s Contingent Workforce team continues to monitor state and local developments affecting companies that retain independent contractors. Please reach out to your BakerHostetler contact or any member of the Contingent Workforce team for compliance assistance.

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

© 2022 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Spurs and Chickens: California Judge Says Prop 22 Is Unconstitutional; Appeal to Follow

There’s a fight brewing over cockfighting, and it may be headed to the Supreme Court. The dispute is over who can regulate the bloodsport and how. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has joined a cadre of cockfighting enthusiasts to ask the Supreme Court to rule that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to ban the contests.

In 1933, Puerto Rico changed its laws to allow the sport, in which gamecocks are often fitted with spurs and battle until death or dismemberment. The federal government later stepped in to ban the fights. People bet on this stuff, really. On chickens. Wearing spurs.

Closer to home, another fight is brewing, and it’s on a subject familiar to readers of this blog – Prop 22 in California. Passed in late 2020 through a ballot initiative, Prop 22 exempts app-based drivers from the ABC Test and allows them to maintain independent contractor status, so long as the app companies provide certain types of benefits to drivers.

But on Friday, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Prop 22 is unconstitutional. Wait, what?

Even though Prop 22 passed with 58% support, the SEIU and a vocal group of drivers weren’t too happy and sued. The matter initially went to the California Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed the petition and said it would not hear the case. The SEIU tried again, this time starting in Superior Court, which is where cases are supposed to start. The union found a sympathetic ear in Judge Frank Roesch, who issued this 12-page opinion, which is confusing, hard to follow, and seems to me to be just plain wrong.

What was the basis for the ruling? Two things.

First, Judge Roesch concluded that Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it limits the legislature’s ability to regulate workers’ compensation. Prop 22 defines app-based drivers as contractors, and contractors don’t get workers comp coverage. The law limits the ability of the legislature to undo Prop 22, which was smart since the legislature hated the bill.

The judge found that these limitations made Prop 22 unconstitutional because the California constitution grants the legislature “plenary” power to oversee workers’ compensation. Prop 22 allows the legislature to make limited amendments to Prop 22 but not to undo the whole thing or reclassify the drivers as employees. In making his ruling, the judge essentially concluded that if the legislature couldn’t undo the law, then the law unduly restricted the legislature. But wait! Just a few pages earlier, the judge conceded that “The term ‘legislature’ in [the California constitution] includes the people acting through the initiative power.” Yes, that’s quite the internal contradiction. If the term “legislature” includes initiatives by the people, then initiatives by the people are the equivalent of legislative action. They are acting as the legislature. An appeals court will likely take care of that confusing mess.

Second, the judge concluded that Prop 22 violated the state constitution’s rule that legislation can only be about one subject. Judge Roesch pointed to the part of Prop 22 that gave app-based drivers the right to collectively bargain in a quasi-union environment. He concluded that the bargaining piece of the law is “utterly unrelated” to the law’s purpose. Huh? That utterly makes no sense. The whole point of Prop 22 was to grant app-based drivers various concessions in exchange for clarity on their status as contractors. These concessions include a minimum rate of pay, contributions to healthcare funds, automobile insurance, and the right to collectively bargain in a specified manner. How could the right to collectively bargain be unrelated to these other rights, all of which were part of the quid pro quo in exchange for preserving independent contractor status? The ruling makes no sense, and this too is likely to be cleaned up on appeal.

So what’s the status of Prop 22? Is it dead? Dismembered? The judge may have tied spurs to his feet and kicked the law around a bit, but I am cautiously optimistic that this law will live to see another day.

The case is now headed to the Court of Appeal, and it may end up back with the California Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, for those of you wagering on whether cockfighting will return to legal status, I’d say the odds are against. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take the case and, if it does, I don’t think the Court will say the federal government lacks the power to regulate chicken gladiator shows. I’d put my money on Prop 22 to survive on appeal. I think Judge Roesch’s analysis is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. But I can’t say I have the same sense of optimism for our cockfighting aficionado friends.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Portable Benefits: Soon to Be Available for Mass. Independent Contractors?

This article in The Fox Magazine lists five things you can buy that are portable, even though you wouldn’t think they could be. The list includes toilets, massage chairs, saunas, neck fans, and bedrooms. The description of a portable bedroom goes like this:

Another brilliant innovation from the country that brought us the toilet in a suitcase, you can now buy a portable bedroom which comes folded up in a series of cabinets that look just like regular closets and dressers. Simply open the cabinet and fold out your bed for a super comfortable night’s sleep.

Um, no thanks.

If this article is revised next year, one surprising addition to the list could be Health Benefits for Massachusetts Independent Contractors. A new bill, inspired by California’s Prop 22, has been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature. To my surprise, the three co-sponsors are Democrats.

The bill, H. 1234, would create a exception to the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, but only in the rideshare and delivery industries.

If the bill passes, rideshare and delivery platform companies would be required to offer occupational accident insurance and pay into a portable benefit account for drivers.

In exchange for doing so, these companies would gain assurance that drivers on their platforms are independent contractors under Massachusetts state law. The normal ABC Test would not apply. Platform companies would also be required to follow a few other basic guidelines in their interactions with drivers, including that:

  • Drivers can decide when to work and not work;
  • Drivers’ access to the platform cannot be terminated for declining a specific rideshare or delivery request;
  • Drivers can provide services on multiple platforms; and
  • Drivers can also work in another lawful occupation or business.

The bill is supported by the Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work (and, of course, by the gig companies), and it is opposed by the Boston Independent Drivers Guild.

If passed, this would mark a significant exception to the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, which currently presumes all working relationships to be employment, unless:

(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and 

(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and, 

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.

Unlike California’s AB 5 (later rewritten as AB 2257), the Massachusetts law does not currently have exceptions for certain industries. Rideshare and delivery services would be the first industries carved out of the Massachusetts ABC Test.

The bill is in the early stages of being considered. It has been referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services for further consideration. We’ll keep an eye on this one. It’s much more intriguing to me than a portable bedroom or sauna.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

SLoB Act? Really? Businesses Should Support This Joint Employment Bill Despite Dumb Name

Image by Prawny from Pixabay

It’s all about branding, fellas. Republicans have introduced bills with clever acronyms before. Examples include:

  • JAWS Act (Justice Attributed to Wounded Sharks)
  • BEER Act (Brewers Excise and Economic Relief Act); and
  • EL CHAPO Act (Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order), to require El Chapo to forfeit assets from the drug trade.

But I’m puzzled by the more recent lack of effort.

Seeking to counter the Democrats’ boldly named PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize), Republicans have introduced the SLoB Act (Save Local Business).

Seriously? That’s the best that your marketing team could do?

The SLoB Act would narrow the definition of joint employment. To find “joint employer” status, proof would be required of direct, actual, immediate, and significant control over essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, pay, benefits, supervision, scheduling, and discipline.

That would be terrific for franchising and for all businesses that use outsourced labor, such as through staffing agencies. The SLoB Act would amend both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For those of you who recall the Browning-Ferris escapades, this bill would repeal the loosey-goosey joint employment standard the NLRB tried to adopt in 2015, later repealed, unrepealed, and appealed. The bill would codify a tougher test, making it much harder to prove joint employment.

The SLoB Act will not pass, at least not in this Congress. It is unlikely to have any Democratic support. But it has a letter of support signed by 65 leading industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, the National Franchise Association, and the Society for Human Resource Management.

I like the bill, but I’d have gone with a better acronym. Such as…

  • JERKY Act (Joint Employment is Really Kinda Yucky)
  • EJECT Act (Editing the Joint Employment Control Test)
  • JESUS Act (Joint Employment Should be Used Sparingly).

I think the last one would garner the most support, no matter what the bill was about. No one wants to go on record opposing Jesus.

But nobody asked me.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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 subscribe to 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 subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge