Before reading this post, please enjoy this adorable video of a porcupine eating an apple.
The porcupine seems harmless and cute, but remember – it’s still a porcupine. Those quills are sharp, and they can impale small would-be predators.
And speaking of impale: A Congressional resolution, if passed, would impale the NLRB’s joint employer rule. The effort has enough support that it could bear fruit. Like the tasty apple in this video.
On January 12, the House passed H.J. Res 98, which would nullify the NLRB’s new joint employer rule. The resolution passed, 206-177, with eight Democrats voting in favor.
The Senate is considering an identical companion bill, S.J. Res 49, which has the support of at least one Democrat. Senator Manchin is a co-sponsor.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can nullify an agency regulation with a simple majority of votes in each house. Sixty votes are not needed in the Senate.
But if the bill passes, President Biden can still veto it, and he has indicated that he would.
Meanwhile, the rule continues to face challenges in federal court. If Congress does not nullify the rule, a court might enter an injunction to prevent it from taking effect. Having reviewed the arguments presented to a federal judge in Texas last week, I think there’s a strong chance the rule will be set aside, at least temporarily.
Remember: The NLRB joint employer test is supposed to be a common law right-to-control test. The scope of the new rule is substantially broader and would create joint employment relationships automatically, including in situations where the common law balancing test would not result in a finding of joint employment.
We can expect a ruling from the court this week, since the NLRB joint employer rule is scheduled to take effect next Monday, February 26.
This is a venomous Eastern Brown Snake, native to Australia. Stay away.
Tennis star Dominic Thiem knew what to watch for in his match this past weekend in Brisbane. It was on-court hazard he couldn’t ignore.
Play was interrupted when a “really poisonous snake” slithered onto the court near the ballkids. The intruder, an Eastern Brown Snake, “has the unfortunate distinction of causing more deaths by snake bite than any other species of snake in Australia.” The snake’s venom causes “progressive paralysis and uncontrollable bleeding,” which is not one of the on-court hazards typically of ballkidding.
(I don’t know if ballkidding is the real word for this, but it should be. Or ballkiddery maybe. I also learned from the snake bite article that the proper term for being bit by a venomous snake is “envenomation,” which is a word I hope to use elsewhere in a sentence sometime in 2024. So there’s a New Year’s resolution. [@Lisa, take note, I made one, even though you {correctly} say I am no fun because I won’t play the New Year’s Resolution game.])
The Eastern Brown Snake is not present in the U.S., so we don’t have to watch for any in 2024.
But here are several other things that could bite you in the behind in 2024 if you’re not paying attention:
1. New DOL test for independent contractor misclassification. The DOL issued its proposed new rule in October 2022 and targeted the fall of 2023 for release of a new final rule. The proposed rule would identify seven factors to consider when evaluating whether someone is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule will likely be very similar. We’re still waiting, and the final rule could be released at any time.
2. The new NLRB test for joint employment takes effect Feb. 26, 2024. Unless it doesn’t. The new rule is being challenged in both a federal district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Either court could quash the rule. The new rule will substantially expand who is a joint employer under the NLRA, even for worksites without unions.
3. Increased state and local enforcement activity. States and localities are filing their own lawsuits alleging worker misclassification. The New Jersey Attorney General recently filed a major lawsuit. The California Attorney General and California localities have been pursuing misclassification lawsuits too. Remember this: As much as I advocate for individual arbitration agreements with class waivers, they have no effect on enforcement actions brought by a state or local government. These lawsuits pose a substantial risk, and the governments love to issue one-sided accusatory press releases when they file the lawsuits.
4. The feds are doing this too. The DOL is bringing its own enforcement actions and publicizing them.
5. State and local laws that affect independent contractor classification and joint employment. We’re seeing legislative activity in three main areas:
(a) laws to change the tests; (b) laws that provide a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain protections are provided to the workers (Cal. Prop 22, this proposed Mass. state law); and (c) Freelancers laws that impose various requirements when retaining a solo independent contractor (currently: NY, IL, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, NYC, Columbus).
6. State laws that criminalize worker misclassification. Take a look at recent legislation passed in NY State and Rhode Island.
7. State laws governing the use of temporary workers. Look for more states to enact laws like the Illinois Day and Temporary Worker Services Act (amended in Aug. 2023) and the New Jersey Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (enacted in Aug, 2023). These laws force companies that use staffing agencies to disclose the wages and benefits being paid to direct employees.
8. California’s AB 5 is still being challenged. This is the law that codified the ABC Test for most independent contractor relationships. But it also included a grab bag of miscellaneous and arbitrary exceptions. A full en banc Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5.
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and litigation-free 2024.
Invented by Virgil A. Gates of West Virginia, the Guard is intended for “holding the moustache out of the way of food or liquid while eating or drinking.” As you may have already guessed, Virgil filed for a patent in 1876. Why would you have guessed that? Because 1876 was the last time anyone was named Virgil.
Moustaches, while certainly worth guarding (especially those of the handlebar variety), aren’t the only thing in need of protection. Solo independent business owners in the delivery and rideshare industries have been under attack, as class action lawsuits and government agency activity increasingly seek to take away their independence by declaring them employees.
In 2020, California enacted Prop 22, which preserved independent contractor status for these drivers so long as the app companies provided a list of preset benefits and guaranteed pay. In a statewide vote, Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 59% of the vote.
Massachusetts may soon follow suit. A similar ballot measure is likely to be considered by voters in the Bay State about a year from now.
The ballot measure, if successful, would create a system like Prop 22 in Massachusetts. Delivery and rideshare drivers would be granted independent contractor status, so long as the app company they were using provided them with a litany of worker benefits. The required benefits would include:
Guaranteed pay at 120% of state minimum wage for time spent completing delivery or rideshare requests;
Additional per mile pay for each mile driven in a personal vehicle;
A healthcare stipend for drivers who average 25 or more hours per week;
One hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked;
Accident insurance; and
Prohibitions on discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.
Click here for the official summary of the proposed law.
If the ballot initiative receives enough signatures, it may appear on the ballot for a statewide vote in November 2024. Alternatively, the legislature may choose to consider the issue on its own, before the 2024 general election.
Initiatives like this one and California’s successful Prop 22 provide a reasonable, common sense third alternative to what is usually a binary choice between classification as an independent contractor (with no employee rights) and an employee. Rideshare and delivery drivers generally value their independence and the ability to operate their own business. Laws like this one allow them to do so as contractors while receiving certain benefits and guarantees.
When Johnny Cash recorded At Folsom Prison in 1968, he has performing for an audience of arsonists, kidnappers, and killers. But the inmate audience probably didn’t include any independent contractor misclassifiers.
Fast forward to 2023. There’s a new sheriff in town, and you wouldn’t believe what might now qualify a person for prison time.
Under a new law signed by Governor Hochul last week, wage theft in New York State is now larceny. The law amends section 155 of the penal code (larceny).
Section 155 defines larceny:
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another`s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways:
The definition then lists five subparts: (a) by embezzlement, (b) by taking lost property, (c) by issuing a bad check, (d) by false promise, or (e) by extortion.
Now there’s a subpart (f) “by wage theft.”
Wage theft is defined to include failing to pay overtime, if overtime is due, for work performed. That definition appears broad enough to include the failure to pay overtime because a worker was treated, incorrectly, as an independent contractor.
Larceny comes in different degrees, based on how much money is involved. The new law says that prosecutors can aggregate multiple instances of wage underpayment to one person into one count. It’s unclear to me whether underpayments to multiple people could be aggregated to create a higher degree of felony.
If the value of the property is up to $1,000, that’s petit larceny and a class A misdemeanor. But anything over $1,000 is grand larceny.
If the value of the property exceeds $1,000, that’s grand larceny in the 4th degree, which is a class E felony. More than $3,000 is 3rd degree grand larceny and a class D felony. More than $50,000 is 2nd degree grand larceny and a class C felony. More than $1,000,000 is 1st degree grand larceny and a class B felony.
These are serious crimes. Non-violent felonies can mean prison time. Conviction of a class E felony (for taking $1,001 to $3,000) can result in up to four years of prison time.
New York is not alone in seeking to classify wage theft as criminal conduct. Minnesota and Washington, D.C., are among other jurisdictions that have criminalized wage theft with laws that authorize jail time. California and Rhode Island are considering similar legislation. Rhode Island’s bill would criminalize the knowing misclassification of independent contractors as a felony.
Here’s a link to the new law in New York, created through two companion bills, A154A and S2832A.
Do I expect Riker’s Island to start filling up with accountants and corporate officers who misclassified independent contractors? Not exactly. But I do expect this new law to be used by the state as leverage.
Now that felony prosecutions are a new weapon in the enforcement arsenal, it would not surprise me to see the state threaten prosecution as leverage to force a company to settle disputes over whether independent contractors were misclassified. States can initiate proceedings through tax, unemployment, or workers compensation audits or as a result of worker complaints. Investigations can lead to findings of misclassification, along with hefty fines and back assessments, and companies naturally want to dispute these findings (sometimes causing my phone to ring).
Will the state use the threat of criminal prosecution to try to leverage settlements or capitulation? Yeah, probably.
This is a well-intentioned law because intentional wage theft from employees is obviously a bad thing. But the breadth of the law is a concern for companies that use independent contractors.
For those of you in New York City, there’s also the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, which imposes all sorts of contractual requirements when retaining solo independent contractors. Don’t forget about that.
There are lots of traps out there, and the dangers of misclassification keep growing.
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders I got chains, chains around my feet I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders And them chains, them chains, They’re about to drag me down.
Not a hawk, but I like this picture I took in Utah a couple years ago
A woman in Texas was mowing her lawn last month when she was suddenly attacked by a snake and a hawk — at the same time. The hawk had been carrying the snake but dropped it. It landed on poor Peggy Jones. The snake wrapped itself around her arm. Still hungry, the hawk dove at Peggy to retrieve its tasty treat, clawing at her and the snake, and ripping up her arm in the process. Eventually the hawk won and flew off with the snake. Peggy had severe cuts and bruises, and her husband had to finish mowing the lawn.
We’ve got another double attack to report, this one in the world of temporary staffing.
Last week we wrote about New Jersey’s new temporary staffing law, which imposes new burdens on companies using temp staffing. Not wanting to be left out of the fun, Illinois has followed suit with a similar law.
The Illinois law imposes several new burdens on companies using temp staffing workers.
I’ve listed those obligations here, on the BakerHostetler Employment Law Spotlight blog. I list eight things that companies in Illinois will need to know.
I haven’t yet decided which law is the hawk and which is the snake. But both will inflict some pain.
Meanwhile, enjoy this song called Snake Hawk, by The Budos Band.
Today we offer some fun facts about New Jersey. Raise your hand if you knew these things, but only if you are working from home because otherwise it would be weird:
The Lambert Castle Museum in Paterson has a spoon exhibit with over 5,400 spoons from every state and almost every country in the world.
The Passaic River in Paterson was the site of the first submarine ride in 1878 by its inventor John P. Holland.
New Jersey’s capital city, Trenton, was once the capital of the United States – but only for about eight weeks in 1784.
A less fun fact about New Jersey is that this past weekend, the NJ Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights went into effect. It is a well-intentioned law that will have loads of unintended consequences. Rather than helping temp workers, the law’s requirements seem more likely to cause companies to stop using temp workers entirely.
The law’s requirements have been discussed elsewhere, and you can check out the BakerHostetler blog, The Bargaining Table, for a more complete discussion. But I want to focus on one aspect of the law that I think is particularly dumb and poorly drafted.
Section 7(b) requires that temp workers “shall not be paid less than the average rate of pay and average cost of benefits, or the cash equivalent thereof, of employees of the third party client performing the same or substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions for the third party client at the time the temporary laborer is assigned to work at the third party client. Each violation of this subsection for each affected temporary laborer shall constitute a separate violation….”
Take a minute to digest that. It requires that temps are paid at least as much as similarly situated regular employees, but not just in wages. You also have to add in the cost of benefits. The cash value of benefits is often around a third of total compensation.
Suppose you have full time maintenance employees who average $20/hour plus benefits. If the cash value of benefits are one-third of the worker’s compensation package, then the temp worker “shall not be paid less than” $26.67/hour. And that’s before the staffing agency takes its markup of, maybe, 35%. You’d have to pay $36/hour for a temp maintenance worker, and the temp worker’s take home pay will be 33% higher (because of the cash value of benefits) than your comparable maintenance employee.
What if the temp agency provides benefits? Unclear. Poorly drafted. The law sets the temp worker’s minimum wage based on the cash value of the benefits the similarly situated employees receive. Maybe if the temp worker gets benefits, then the temp’s hourly wage floor would be $20, not $26.67, but that’s not clear.
Not only does the law greatly increase the cost of using temp labor, it also requires the company using the staffing agency’s services to disclose to the staffing agency the average wages and cost of benefits it provides to its similarly situated employees. If your company didn’t disclose this information, the staffing agency wouldn’t be able to comply with the pay floor requirement.
A failure to comply results in joint liability. So now you need to make sure the staffing agency pays its temps a particular wage, calculated based on the wages your company pays its employees. In your staffing agency agreement, you’ll need to require the agency to pay a particular wage to ensure compliance.
Here’s where things get tricky. An indemnity provision might not be sufficient to shift liability because the law says both parties are liable. So you need a breach of contract claim to rely on instead.
To build a potential breach of contract claim, the company will want to contractually require the agency to pay the workers a wage that is not less than the average cost of the company’s wages and cost of benefits. But directing and controlling wages is a strong indicator of joint employment under other laws. The act of complying with the NJ law could turn companies into joint employers. The wording in any staffing agreement, therefore, needs to thread the needle.
The text in a staffing agency agreement (or amendment) will need to be carefully drafted so that the company is requiring only that the agency comply with NJ law with respect to wages and benefits and is not directing or controlling the wages and benefits that the agency pays its temps.
Something like this might work: “If required under N.J.S.A. [insert citation], but only to the extent required by such statute, Agency shall pay the temporary workers at a rate not less than the average rate of pay and average cost of benefits, or the cash equivalent thereof, of employees of the company performing the same or substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions for the company at the time the temporary laborer is assigned to work at the company.”
I don’t like telling the agency what it must pay its workers, but you’ll want a breach of contract claim available to you if the agency fails to comply and your company is jointly liable under the NJ law. An amendment to your staffing agency agreement is appropriate, but it needs to be carefully drafted.
And here’s another possible unintended consequence. How will your maintenance employees like being paid less than the maintenance temps? Maybe we need a union in here to get us a fair wage! I could see things going in that direction. If a temp can take home $26.67/hour, we want $26.67/hour too, not $20!
The NJ law does not apply to all temps. It applies to temps in these “occupational categories as designated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor:
33-90000 Other Protective Service Workers;
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations;
37-35 0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations;
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations;
47-37 2060 Construction Laborers;
47-30000 Helpers, Construction Trades;
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations;
51-0000 Production Occupations;
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations; or
any successor categories as the Bureau of Labor Statistics may designate.”
If all of this makes you want to take a long walk and get away, then fun fact: New Jersey has more than 4,000 miles of trails!
The Rolling Stones’ song, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” features the London Bach Choir and addresses the predominant themes of the 1960s — love, protest, and drugs. There’s some controversy as to whether Mr. Jimmy refers to vagrant Minnesotan Jimmy Hutmaker, who supposedly uttered the famous lyric-to-be during a chance 1964 encounter with Jagger at Bacon’s Drugstore, or Jimmy Miller, a record producer who also played drums on this track instead of Charlie Watts.
“You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is also a suitable theme for the main problem that dominates every aspect of independent contractor misclassification. The problems is that the laws are binary. A worker is either an employee who receives all of the protections of employment laws, or an independent contractor, who receives none. The exceptions creating a middle ground have been sparse.
But if you try sometimes.
California voters tried and succeeded in creating a middle ground in 2022, when they passed Prop 22. Prop 22 guarantees independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers if a series of conditions are met, and then the app companies are required to provide a range of protections for drivers, including minimum rates of pay, a health insurance stipend, accident insurance, sexual harassment prevention, safety training, and rest requirements.
Prop 22 was and is a model for the middle ground that has been missing.
But Prop 22 has also been under attack. In a case called Castellenos, the SIEU and other worker advocates have argued that Prop 22 violates the California constitution and had to be invalidated. Without Prop 22, rideshare and delivery drivers could be subjected to California’s ABC Test for determining drivers’ status.
As you may have read, a California Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Prop 22 did not violate the California Constitution and could take effect, except for one small part of the law governing future amendments. The dispute will likely be heard by the California Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.
The point I want to make, though, is that Prop 22 carves out a middle ground that should be a model for other states to follow. It guarantees workers certain protections while allowing them to operate their own businesses as independent contractors.
The unions and worker advocates calling for the protection of worker rights routinely ignore the surveys showing that a vast majority of drivers prefer independent contractor status. Much of the noise on this issue is coming from a vocal minority.
The Prop 22 model is a middle ground that provides workers with protections they otherwise lack, while allowing workers to retain their preferred independent contractor status and flexibility.
We’ll continue to watch whether the California Supreme Court decides to hear this dispute but, either way, Prop 22 should be held up as a model for other states to follow, carving out a middle ground that balances the concerns of all sides. Worker status does not have to be binary. Binary laws that mandate employee or independent contractor status, with no middle ground, do not reflect the realities of the modern gig economy.
It’s time for reform.
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.
The Rolling Stones’ song, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” features the London Bach Choir and addresses the predominant themes of the 1960s — love, protest, and drugs. There’s some controversy as to whether Mr. Jimmy refers to vagrant Minnesotan Jimmy Hutmaker, who supposedly uttered the famous lyric-to-be during a chance 1964 encounter with Jagger at Bacon’s Drugstore, or Jimmy Miller, a record producer who also played drums on this track instead of Charlie Watts.
“You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is also a suitable theme for the main problem that dominates every aspect of independent contractor misclassification. The problems is that the laws are binary. A worker is either an employee who receives all of the protections of employment laws, or an independent contractor, who receives none. The exceptions creating a middle ground have been sparse.
But if you try sometimes.
California voters tried and succeeded in creating a middle ground in 2022, when they passed Prop 22. Prop 22 guarantees independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers if a series of conditions are met, and then the app companies are required to provide a range of protections for drivers, including minimum rates of pay, a health insurance stipend, accident insurance, sexual harassment prevention, safety training, and rest requirements.
Prop 22 was and is a model for the middle ground that has been missing.
But Prop 22 has also been under attack. In a case called Castellenos, the SIEU and other worker advocates have argued that Prop 22 violates the California constitution and had to be invalidated. Without Prop 22, rideshare and delivery drivers could be subjected to California’s ABC Test for determining drivers’ status.
As you may have read, a California Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Prop 22 did not violate the California Constitution and could take effect, except for one small part of the law governing future amendments. The dispute will likely be heard by the California Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.
The point I want to make, though, is that Prop 22 carves out a middle ground that should be a model for other states to follow. It guarantees workers certain protections while allowing them to operate their own businesses as independent contractors.
The unions and worker advocates calling for the protection of worker rights routinely ignore the surveys showing that a vast majority of drivers prefer independent contractor status. Much of the noise on this issue is coming from a vocal minority.
The Prop 22 model is a middle ground that provides workers with protections they otherwise lack, while allowing workers to retain their preferred independent contractor status and flexibility.
We’ll continue to watch whether the California Supreme Court decides to hear this dispute but, either way, Prop 22 should be held up as a model for other states to follow, carving out a middle ground that balances the concerns of all sides. Worker status does not have to be binary. Binary laws that mandate employee or independent contractor status, with no middle ground, do not reflect the realities of the modern gig economy.
It’s time for reform.
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.
What Companies Using Temps In New Jersey Need to Know
According to the National Constitution Center, there were 14 original copies of the Bill of Rights, with one sent to each of the 13 states and another kept by the federal government. The Center also reports, however, that four of the states — Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania — lost their copies. North Carolina’s was stolen by a Union soldier during the Civil War but recovered in 2002 through an FBI sting. (“Hey buddy, I’m lookin’ to buy a Bill of Rights. Ya know anyone?”)
New Jersey kept its copy, but also just added some new stuff. Sort of.
This month, New Jersey passed the Temporary Workers Bill of Rights. It’s less sweeping than the original 1791 Bill of Rights, but it co-opts the important sounding name to get everyone’s attention and to show constituents that the lawmakers are doing really important things that warrant re-election, financial support, the undying love of chatbots, etc.
The Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights imposes new burdens on staffing agencies and the companies using temp workers. This post will focus on the obligations imposed by the companies using the temp workers.
Does the Bill apply to your industry?
The Bill applies to temp workers assigned by a temp staffing firm to work in any of the following industries, using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) designations:
33-90000 Other Protective Service Workers
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
47-2060 Construction Laborers
47-30000 Helpers, Construction Trades
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
51-0000 Production Occupations
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
If you’re not in one of these industries, stop reading and get on with your day.
What obligations does the Bill impose on the users of temp labor?
1. Equal Pay. This sounds fair but may be problematic in practice. Temp workers must be paid “not less than the average rate of pay and average cost of benefits, or the cash equivalent thereof” of the user’s similarly situated employees.
I see two immediate problems here.
First, one of the benefits of using a staffing agency is the ability to pay the temps less until they prove themselves and earn an offer of direct hire. No longer. Now you’ll have to pay the same amount as you pay your regular workers, plus the markup.
Second, how is the staffing agency going to know the wages paid to your similarly situated regular workers and the value of the benefits package you provide them? Presumably you’ll have to tell the staffing agency.
But the staffing agency is not your confidant or fiduciary. It has multiple clients, probably including your competitors. Do you really want the staffing agency to know what your cost of insurance is, or what you pay your regular workers, or the full suite of benefits you offer? The staffing agency will have to adjust what it charges you — and your competitors — based on what each of its clients pay their similarly situated worker. That sounds like a pretty useful set of data for anyone wanting to know what competitors are doing.
You can (and should) designate this information as confidential when disclosing it to a staffing agency, and you should make sure your staffing agency agreement includes an obligation to protect confidential information. But is the information really that safe from prying eyes? If a competitor or temp worker is involved in litigation, couldn’t this information be subject to subpoena? Once you reveal this information, you lose a good bit of control over it.
2. Freedom to direct hire. Under the new law, temp workers must be free to accept offers of direct hire. Staffing agencies cannot restrict the workers’ ability to accept offers of direct hire. The agency can impose a “placement fee” on its client (you), but the amount is limited by statute.
The amount of the placement fee cannot exceed “the equivalent of the total daily commission rate the temporary help service firm would have received over a 60-day period, reduced by the equivalent of the daily commission rate the temporary help service firm would have received for each day the temporary laborer has performed work for the temporary help service firm in the preceding 12 months.”
For purposes of contracting, any provisions prohibiting direct hire for limited periods of time need to be removed. Instead, staffing contracts (in NJ, for these job classifications) should permit direct hire but may charge a permitted placement fee.
3. Reimbursement of tax obligations. The user of services is required to reimburse the temp agency for wages and “related payroll taxes.” Presumably this is already basked into the markup, but now it’s required.
4. Joint and several liability. The law imposes joint liability for any violations of the equal pay or direct hire provisions. Consider what that means for equal pay. You might have to disclose to the temp agency what you pay your similarly situated employees, but you don’t control the temp agency’s payroll practices. If they mess up and pay the temp worker less than the law requires, the law says you’ll be jointly liable.
Who said anything about fair?
Be sure your staffing agency agreement includes robust indemnity provisions. The agreement should also create a contractual obligation for the temp agency to pay workers all amounts they are due under the law so that, if the agency fails to do so, you can point to a breach of contract when seeking indemnity. Indemnity claims based purely on the law could be subject to challenge since the law also says there is joint liability.
Conclusions
This Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights applies only to certain industries in New Jersey but, for users of temps in these industries, the law creates important new obligations.
For violations, the law allows for a private right of action and carries a six-year statute of limitations.
If you use temp labor in New Jersey in one of the covered industries, be sure you understand the new requirements. This would be a good time to go back and revisit your staffing agency agreements. They may need some tidying up.
Also consider requiring temp workers to sign individual arbitration agreements as a condition of being placed at your worksite. This strategy can help insulate you from a class action filed against both the temp agency and your company. Class actions against both entities are a particular concern, given the joint liability section of the new law.
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.
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.
Who Is My Employee? 