by Todd Lebowitz

For Upcoming Changes to Independent Contractor Rules, Look to Band Names

The band America (“A Horse with No Name,” “Ventura Highway”) was formed in England. Yes, really. But by three Americans whose fathers were in the U.S. Air Force and stationed overseas.

That got me thinking about other bands with place names. When I was growing up in Miami in the 1980s, if someone mentioned Boston, I thought of just another band out of Boston, on the road to make ends meet. If someone mentioned Kansas, I thought of dust in the wind, even though I never particularly liked that song. Chicago made me think of the Cubs, but only in 1984. Otherwise, does anybody really know what time it is?

Not that I am older and have a life, place names mean something different to me. They now make me think of federal, state, and local laws affecting independent contractor status.

(Ok, I take back the comment about having a life. I realize this is a sad and pathetic way to think of place names.)

After the election, place names are going to take on greater importance as businesses aim to protect their independent contractor relationships. Federal enforcement activity isn’t going away, but I expect to see a growing emphasis on legislation and enforcement at the state and local level.

In the realm of non-employee workers (independent contractors, staffing agency temps), I expect to more state and local legislation in these areas:

1) Freelancer Laws. We now have freelancer laws in CA, NY, IL, Los Angeles, NYC, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Columbus. These laws impose requirements when retaining individuals who are independent contractors. The laws generally require written contracts that contain several mandatory components.

2) Temporary Worker Laws. We have these in NJ and IL. They generally require that staffing agencies pay their workers an equivalent wage rate (and sometimes the value of benefits) being paid to workers they work alongside at the company where they are providing services.

3) Misclassification Laws – the Bad Kind. In states with Democrat trifectas (house, senate, governor), expect new laws that make it harder to be an independent contractor. Expect more ABC Tests, like in CA and MA. Other states have ABC Tests for determining who is an employee under workers’ comp and unemployment law.

4) Misclassification Laws – the Good Kind. In states with Republican trifectas, expect more safe harbor laws. If you satisfy a set of basic requirements in your dealings with a non-employee worker, then the worker is an independent contractor under that state’s laws. Pesky balancing tests (and long-haired freaky people) need not apply. We have these state laws in WV and LA (not L.A.)

We will likely see changes at the federal level too, but these may take years to develop. The federal agency rulemaking process is slow and cumbersome, and agency rules will take on less importance as federal agency power continues to diminish after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision.

I haven’t touched on Europe or Asia, but those are bands for another day and another post. When? At some point, in the heat of the moment, but only time will tell.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.28.24

by Todd Lebowitz

Hugs! 7-Eleven Franchisees Are Not Employees, Court Rules

Have you ever heard the expression, “I was so happy I could hug a goose”?

Me either. That’s because it’s not an expression. But no one told the sculptor here.

I took this photo while touring the gardens at a villa in Varenna, Italy. I am still haunted by the image. The goose seems none too pleased, but the boy is playing him like a guitar, no matter the feelings of the goose.

Franchise owners in Massachusetts are so happy that they could hug a goose after a recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling.

For years, there’s been ongoing litigation in which five 7-Eleven franchise owners sued 7-Eleven, claiming to be employees of the franchisor. The franchise industry has been closely monitoring the case because a ruling for the plaintiffs could threaten the franchise model.

The case has twice been before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The first time, the Mss. S.Ct. ruled that individual franchise owners could, potentially, be deemed employees under the Massachusetts ABC Test if the individuals were “performing any services” for the franchisor. This ruling, in 2022, merely answered a hypothetical question, but the answer made franchisors nervous.

The litigation continued and made its way to the Mass. S.Ct. a second time. This time the issue was whether the individuals, by operating their stores as 7-Eleven franchises (and following 7-Eleven brand guidelines, etc.) were “performing any services” for the franchisor.

In a goose-hug-worthy decision, the Mass. S.Ct. ruled in late September that “the franchisees operate independent stores not for 7-Eleven
but rather for themselves.” Therefore, they are not performing services for the franchisor, and they cannot be deemed the franchisor’s employees.

This is great news for franchisors (and bad news for plaintiffs’ lawyers). Celebrate however you think is best, but please consider the feelings of the goose.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

01.02.24

by Todd Lebowitz

Snakes! And Other Things to Watch for in 2024

*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.

Best wishes,
Todd

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.09.23

by Todd Lebowitz

Guard Your ‘Stache: Massachusetts May Consider Its Own Version of Prop 22

This is the Moustache Guard.

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.

And that’s worth protecting.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

07.05.22

by Todd Lebowitz

Hear This: Ballot Measure to Limit Mass. ABC Test is Blocked

Have you heard? There’s a baby goat in Pakistan who may have set the world record for Longest Ears by a Goat. The ears are each 1.6 feet long. Which also means there’s category for Longest Ears by a Goat.

The goat, named Simba, reportedly trips on its ears, which are so long that they drag on the ground. That’s a problem, I hear.

I’m also hearing of a problem in Massachusetts, but it’s of a different sort entirely.

Efforts to add exceptions to Massachusetts’ ABC Test for independent contractor misclassification have been scuttled by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. A ballot measure modeled after California’s Prop 22* would have created exemptions to support independent contractor status for app-based rideshare and delivery drivers. The Court, however, ruled that the proposed ballot measure covered too many subjects and could not lawfully be placed on the ballot.

What does all this mean?

As many of you know, Massachusetts has the toughest test in the nation when it comes to classifying independent contractors. Under Massachusetts wage and hour law, a worker is deemed an employee 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.

That’s a strict ABC Test, like California’s. But California’s ABC Test has a slew of exceptions, memorialized in AB 2257, formerly AB 5. The Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law has no exceptions, which makes Massachusetts a favorite venue for plaintiffs’ lawyers who like to bring misclassification cases.

With the ballot measure struck down, voters will not have an opportunity to pass a Prop 22-like bill in Massachusetts that would have allowed app-based rideshare and delivery drivers to maintain independent contractor status, so long as certain requirements were met.

States with ABC Tests continue to pose significant compliance risks for businesses that rely on independent contractors. It’s easy to trip and fall, regardless of the size of one’s goat ears.

*California’s Prop 22 is in limbo too. As explained here, a state court ruled the ballot measure unconstitutional. The issue is now on appeal.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

03.28.22

by Todd Lebowitz

Bobcat vs Python: Franchisors Stuck with ABC Test, Says Mass. Court

I just got back from Miami, where this happened. According to The Miami Herald, a very badass bobcat was caught on video taunting a 120-lb python by swatting at it and eating its eggs. Despite giving up 100 lbs to the python, the bobcat reigned supreme. Unbeknownst to our friends in the animal kingdom, there are easier ways to get an omelet.

This week’s post is also about fighting over who reigns supreme. But this battle is between the FTC Franchise Rule and the ABC Test for determining independent contractor vs employee status. Sounds exciting? (I know!)

In Massachusetts, there is a strict ABC Test for determining employee status. This is the hardest ABC Test to meet in the US. It is the same as California‘s test but lacks the exceptions found in California law.

ABC Tests have been viewed in the business community as a threat to the franchising model of doing business. On one hard, franchisors must exert control over their franchisees to ensure brand consistency. On the other hand, exerting control is a sign of employment and could turn a franchisee into the franchisor’s employee.

In Patel v. 7-Eleven, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was asked whether the ABC Test can be used to determine employment status in a dispute between a franchisor and franchisee. The franchisor, 7-Eleven, argued that the state law test is incompatible with the FTC Franchise Rule and should therefore be disregarded in the franchise context.

The Court ruled that the ABC Test still applies, reversing the earlier decision I wrote about here, in this super fun but now outdated Electric Grandma-themed post.

The Court explained that the FTC Franchise Rule deals with control over the “method of operations,” not control over the method of “performing service”:

“[C]ontrol over the franchisee’s method of operation” does not require a franchisor to exercise “control and direction” in connection with the franchisee’s “performing any service” for the franchisor — the relevant inquiry under the first prong of the ABC test. That the election under the FTC Franchise Rule and the first prong of the ABC test employ the same word — control — does not create an inherent conflict. Indeed, “significant control” over a franchisee’s “method of operation” and “control and direction” of an individual’s “performance of services” are not necessarily coextensive.

I dissent. (Can I do that?)

The lines get awfully blurry awfully fast. The differences the Court relies on are subtle differences. In many respects, control over the operation seems to requires control over how services are performed. Your burger at one franchise looks and tastes the same as your burger at another franchise because the method for making that burger has to be essentially the same. It’s true that the franchisor doesn’t control a franchisee’s schedule or hiring process. But how well will a jury understand that the franchisor’s control is over the “operation,” but not over the “services”?

The Court’s ruling does not mean franchisees in Massachusetts are going to be considered employees now, but it does make it more challenging for a defendant/franchisor to explain the subtle distinctions in types of control.

I don’t know who in this scenario is the bobcat and who is the python, and I certainly don’t know who would be the one eating the eggs. But like the python vs. bobcat confrontation, there’s a definite clash here, and it’s an uncomfortable and confusing situation for everyone. The Massachusetts Supreme Court certainly didn’t do anything to make it easier to apply the ABC Test, and independent contractor misclassification remains a serious risk for franchisors who comply with franchising requirements.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

06.28.21

by Todd Lebowitz

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.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

10.12.20

by Todd Lebowitz

Thanks, Electric Grandma! When Laws Collide, ABC Test Falls (This Time, at Least).

In 1982, a trio of children and their father had no grandma but desperately needed one. So, according to IMDB, they got “a very special robot grandmother to assist them.” It was futuristic fun and all the hijinks that accompany that sort of thing but, at its core, this was a simple clash of incompatible laws.

The Laws of Nature said “No Grandma,” but the Laws of Biomedical Engineering as Modified by 1980s Television Science Fiction said “Yes!”

This week’s post is also about what happens when two laws are incompatible, but we’ll steer clear of trying to figure out which part of grandma’s backside in the TV ad has father smiling in that way that makes me uncomfortable.

In Massachusetts, a group of 7-Eleven franchise owners sued 7-Eleven, Inc., claiming they should have been classified as employees of 7-Eleven, Inc. under the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law. The Mass IC law is the strictest in the nation (take that, California!) and imposes an ABC Test that lacks the exceptions enjoyed by a select few Golden Staters.

Under the Mass IC law, “an individual performing any service” for another is presumed to be an employee. To avoid that conclusion, the alleged employer must prove all three parts of a strict ABC Test:

(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.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were employees under Part A of the Mass IC Law because 7-Eleven exerted control over how they ran their stores.

But 7-Eleven said the type of control exerted was the type of control required under the Federal Trade Commission’s Franchise Rule and the 154-page Compliance Guide that instructs franchisors on what they need to do.

A federal district court agreed with 7-Eleven. The court ruled that the Mass IC Law and the FTC’s Franchise Rule were incompatible when it came to franchising, and the federal rule carries the day.

Case dismissed.

Other courts have agreed, even in California, that when the type of control exerted is required under another law, that is not the type of control that converts someone to an employee. The “required control” argument can be a powerful defense to a claim of independent contractor misclassification.

There has been a lot of concern in the franchising world that the increased adoption of ABC Tests and other laws designed to convert everyone into an employee may put the entire franchise model at risk. This decision, while certain to be appealed, should be somewhat reassuring to franchisors that the franchise model can survive, even in the face of the strictest of ABC Tests.

Meanwhile, The Electric Grandmother was nominated for a 1982 Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Children’s Program, and Maureen Stapleton went on to do voiceover for the non-electric grandmother in Snow Cat, showing her versatility in playing both electric and non-electric grandmothers.

Snow Cat, according to IMDB, was a “series of children’s videos with awesome original songs about awesome trucks.” In case you needed something to watch tonight.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

04.27.20

by Todd Lebowitz

Did a State Supreme Court Just Rewrite a Key Definition in Independent Contractor Misclassification Law?

knowtherules For businesses using independent contractors and concerned about misclassification claims, there hasn’t been too much to get mad about lately. As of last week, I’m just mad about saffron. (She’s just mad about me.)

But a recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may change that. The PA Supreme Court just took a commonly used phrase in Employee vs. Independent Contractor tests and gave it a new meaning. (Fun fact about change: If you change your name, you probably can’t include a numeral or punctuation.”)

Under PA unemployment law, anyone receiving pay is an employee for unemployment insurance purposes, unless the individual is (a) free from control and direction, and (b) customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Traditionally, that’s a test that’s been considered pretty easy to meet. Maybe not anymore.

Addressing part (b), the PA Supreme Court ruled that to be “customarily engaged in” an independent business, the individual must — right now — “actually be involved, as opposed to merely having the ability to be involved, in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.”

The Court looked to see whether the contractor actually operated his/her own business. Merely being allowed to do so wasn’t enough. It may still be enough if the contractor advertises his/her services to the public, even if a contractor doesn’t have other customers at that particular time. But the contractor needs to take some affirmative steps that show that the contractor is — at that time — “actually involved” in an “independently established trade, occupation, profession or business” at the same time the contractor is being paid by whatever company doesn’t think that worker is its employee.

If this “actually engaged” standard is applied in other states, it may make it harder in other states to maintain independent contractor status. States that have a similar “customarily engaged in” requirement in one or more of their misclassification tests include:

Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii (apostrophe before the last i or no? I never know.)
Indiana
Lousiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Yikes. In most of these states, the “customarily engaged in” language is in the statutes covering who is an employee for unemployment insurance, but some of the states also include this as part of their test for other laws.

In California and Massachusetts, for example, that language is part C of the dreaded ABC Test that addresses other aspects of the employer-employee relationship.

To be safe, companies should consider requiring independent contractors to provide some proof that they are “actually engaged in” an “independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.” The proof might consist of evidence that they advertise for other customers or that they have other clients. What’s considered sufficient in one state might not be good enough in another.

While coronavirus seems to be dominating the news cycle, let’s not lose sight of the fact that independent contractor relationships are still under attack. Companies should do what they can to be proactive. Now it a good time to evaluate your relationships with contractors to make sure they can withstand a challenge.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

03.04.19

by Todd Lebowitz

Which States Are Trying to Kill “Independent Contractors” to Death? (Hint: One Rhymes with Schmalifornia)

Man Killed to Death - independent contractor misclassification

Only 4:34 am and already it’s gonna be a long day in the newsroom.

The tests for Independent Contractor vs. Employee vary state-by-state, law-by-law.

In some states, it’s particularly hard to show that an independent contractor relationship is real. These states want to call everyone an employee, even if the parties have agreed to classify the relationship as an independent contractor relationship. When it comes to independent contractor classification, these are the states that are killing it to death.

Like the poor guy who was the subject of this local news story. Getting killed to death — that’s gotta be one of the worst ways to die.

The Top Three Hardest States to Be Independent Contractors, from my vantage point, are: Continue reading →

Who Is My Employee?

Exploring Independent Contractor Misclassification & Joint Employment Issues

Tag Archives: Massachusetts

For Upcoming Changes to Independent Contractor Rules, Look to Band Names

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Hugs! 7-Eleven Franchisees Are Not Employees, Court Rules

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Snakes! And Other Things to Watch for in 2024

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Guard Your ‘Stache: Massachusetts May Consider Its Own Version of Prop 22

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Hear This: Ballot Measure to Limit Mass. ABC Test is Blocked

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Bobcat vs Python: Franchisors Stuck with ABC Test, Says Mass. Court

Subscribe to Blog via Email

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

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Thanks, Electric Grandma! When Laws Collide, ABC Test Falls (This Time, at Least).

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Did a State Supreme Court Just Rewrite a Key Definition in Independent Contractor Misclassification Law?

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Which States Are Trying to Kill “Independent Contractors” to Death? (Hint: One Rhymes with Schmalifornia)

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Share this:

Share this: