Beware of Bright Shiny Objects: Home Health Care Company Gets Whacked in Misclassification Claim

Alabama jewelry store owner Slater Jones owns a two-carat diamond. That might not seem surprising, but stay with me here. Jones keeps the diamond in his eye. Literally, in his eye.

You see, Jones lost his right eye to illness. Rather than living with a boring old prosthetic eye that looks like, well, an eye, Jones engaged eye prosthetic expert John Lin to create a custom artificial eye from a diamond.

Having a diamond for an eye may seem a bit gaudy, but I guess if you’re in the jewelry business, you may as well just go for it.

Those in the home health care business, on the other hand, should not just go for it — especially if “it” is classifying in-home health aides as independent contractors.

In a settlement finalized earlier this month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a $9.5 million settlement against the individual owners of a home health care company for misclassifying its workers in violation of California law. In this case, the owners appears to have operated the home health agency as a d/b/a without having incorporated. Oopsie. The settlement included another $1.5 million against a different incorporated home health care entity and its family of owners.

The settlement also prohibited all of the defendants from classifying their aides as independent contractors in the future.

We have seen a lot of recent cases brought against home health care companies that classify their workers as independent contractors. This settlement is a stern warning that home health care companies choosing that model need to be extremely cautious.

Because this case was brought by the State, some of the protections we often recommend, like individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers, provide no protection. This case and the settlement also serve as a reminder that individuals can be held liable for intentional misclassification.

The claims brought against the agencies focused largely on California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Misclassification allegations under the UCL typically claim that the wrongdoer gained an improper advantage in the marketplace by unlawfully classifying employees as independent contractors.

Treating in-home aides as contractors may seem like a bright shiny object worth pursuing. But that sparkle you see is no diamond. It’s just the gleam in the eye of the State Attorney General, preparing to count the cash from another misclassification settlement.

Classify wisely, my friends.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Higher or No Hire? Don’t Forget This Minnesota Law When Working with Staffing Agencies

I searched in Apple Music for songs titled “Higher,” and it’s a pretty common song title. There are songs called “Higher” by Creed, Tems, Citizen Cope, TEC, burns Boy, Rihanna, DJ Khaled, Lemaitre, Chris Stapleton Michael Buble, Eminem and more. I stopped the list because you get the idea. If you want “Higher,” just search for songs, and you’ll have many to choose from.

But if instead you want “Hire,” and you’re in Minnesota, your options are much fewer. Or, actually, your options are much fewer if you want “No Hire.” Let me explain.

A Minnesota law enacted last summer bans service providers, including staffing agencies, from doing anything to “restrict, restrain, or prohibit” the hiring of its employees or independent contractors. That means a clause prohibiting direct hire is no longer allowed. The law also bans clauses that would prevent soliciting such workers for direct hire.

The law took effect July 1, 2024, and it applies to earlier contracts too, rendering these clauses void.

There are a few limited exceptions, such as for vendors providing professional business consulting for computer software development. But that’s a pretty narrow lane to try to drive your truck through. Reminds me of some tunnels I drove through in Northern Italy last fall. Not much room to maneuver. Especially when there’s a bus in the tunnel. They shouldn’t let buses in those tunnels.

A possible workaround is to impose direct hire fees, but those fees may be seen as “restrict[ing]” or “restrain[ing]” hiring. It’s unclear whether Minnesota courts will view direct hire fees as an unlawful restriction or restraint under this new law.

If your business provides or uses staffing services in Minnesota, check your contract. Same thing for contracts with other vendors who supply labor, such as consultants. If the contract prohibits direct hire of the vendor or staffing agency’s employees, that clause is probably now void.

And there are no good songs about laws that void contract clauses. I checked.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Time Travel?! Check Your Contracts for “Services” Definitions.

I saw this tourist bus in New Zealand. So they finally figured it out. This company combines time travel and leisure, which I assume means that these tourists enjoyed a two-week vacation then returned home on the day they left.

Or maybe they were visiting from the future, which if true, I would have a lot of questions for them.

On a recent business transaction I worked, time travel might have helped the seller. Allow me to explain. The thing to remember is that words matter, just like there is a sharp difference between leisure time travel and leisure time travel. I choose to believe this touring company specialized in the latter.

The seller’s business was to offer technical specialists to its clients as consultants. The specialists had skills and expertise that the clients lacked. The consultants would advise the seller’s client. So far, so good. That’s a good business model.

But what we found as we read the contracts caused some concern. In all arrangements with clients, the seller’s function was the same — to identify and loan out technical specialists, while treating them as seller’s employees. Seller was operating as a quasi-staffing agency.

Even though the arrangements were the same each time, there was some sloppiness in how the “Services” were defined. In what I would call the Staffing Contracts, the seller’s agreements with its clients properly described the Services as identifying technical experts, loaning them out, and treating them as seller’s employees for employment and tax purposes.

But some of the agreements were what I would call Consulting Contracts. In the Consulting Contracts, the seller’s Services were described as providing the technical expertise desired by the client.

What’s the difference? Well it’s as big as the different between leisure time travel and leisure time travel. Suppose the individual consultant gives bad advice and makes a mistake that causes the client to lose money. The client then looks to the seller for indemnity and relief.

In a Services Contract, the client is entitled to no relief for a consultant’s bad advice. The seller did what it contracted to do. It provided the talent. But in a Consulting Contract, the seller contracted to provide consulting services. If the consulting services were provided in a negligent manner or resulted in a loss by the client, the seller might be liable for those damages.

The lesson here is to be careful when defining Services. If you are loaning out talent, be sure to define the Services narrowly.

Poor drafting may result in confusion and unexpected liability. If you find yourself in this situation, try to amend the contract, and see if you can make the amendment retroactive, time-travel style.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Lessons from a Blobfish: How to Avoid an Unexpected Retaliation Claim When Deciding Who to Engage

From mid-January to mid-February, I spent four weeks working remote from New Zealand’s South Island. It’s an astoundingly beautiful place, and I loved the experience. One experience I apparently missed out on, however, was seeing the now-famous blobfish.

The gelatinous blobfish lives at depths of 2,000-4,000 feet, a visit to which was not on my itinerary. But if it had been, I might have seen the 2025 Fish of the Year, as named by New Zealand’s Mountain to Sea Conservation Trust.

Its odd appearance is apparently caused by bringing the fish to the surface. In its deep sea habitat, the pressure causes it to look rather like a normal fish. So if you were deep in the sea, you might not have treated the blobfish any differently than its neighbors.

A recent federal court decision serves as a good reminder about the dangers of treating someone differently — in a way you might not have expected.

A recruiting firm was working with a candidate who had been threatening to sue her former employer for discrimination. The recruiting firm advised her against it and, when she sued anyway, it dropped her as a client.

But recruiting, staffing, and other firms can work with whomever they want, right? Generally yes, but they cannot decline to engage someone for an unlawful reason.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows employees to assert their legal rights opposing discrimination and protects them against retaliation. The protection against retaliation extends beyond the company being sued. Another potential employer — or recruiting firm, or staffing firm, or even a company considering engaging the person as an independent contractor — cannot retaliate against that person for having asserted protected legal rights.

The lesson for recruiting, staffing, and other firms is this: Do not turn someone away for the sole reason that the person sued a former employer. That may be in violation of federal law.

In the federal case described above, the court denied a motion to dismiss by the recruiting firm, holding that the firm could potentially be liable for retaliation if the reason it declined to work with the individual was because she had asserted her federal protected rights under Title VII.

Like the blobfish, this seems like an ugly outcome for businesses. But also like the blobfish, if you go a little deeper, everything appears somewhat normal. If an individual was truly discriminated against, that person should not be punished for being a victim. That’s the theory anyway. We all know there are lots of meritless discrimination lawsuits. The anti-retaliation protections of Title VII extend to claims brought in good faith, even if the plaintiff doesn’t win.

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

© 2025 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Hospital Blues? Joint Employer Test Under Review By DC Appeals Court

I ran a search for songs about Washington DC. I didn’t recognize any that popped up, but there is one that caught my eye — and ear.

“Washington DC Hospital Center Blues” is a 1966 release by blues guitarist Skip James. You can check it out here.

Although it may seem like nothing newsworthy is happening in DC lately (tee hee hee, bahahahaha), there is a DC Court of Appeals case worth watching.

The NLRB had ruled that Google is a joint employer of YouTube contract workers, who are represented by the Alphabet Workers Union. The impact of NLRB’s decision would be that Google is forced to the bargaining table to negotiate with workers it does not directly employ. Google defied the order and appealed to the DC Court of Appeals, arguing that it is not a joint employer.

There are a few joint employment issues in the case that are worth watching:

First, what is the proper test for joint employment under the NLRA? Historically, courts have held that a common law right-to-control test applies, but the NLRB keeps issuing its own regulations defining (and changing) the joint employer test.

Second, will courts pay any attention to what the NLRB thinks the test is? If the proper test is a common law test, then the courts don’t need the NLRB to tell it what the common law is.

Finally, whatever the DC Circuit decides, will the NLRB listen? Historically, the NLRB follows the doctrine of non-acquiescence. That’s a fancy of way of saying it doesn’t care what the courts say. If it wasn’t the Supreme Court that ruled, the NLRB tends to ignore the ruling, except as it applies in that particular dispute.

If you’re looking for something interesting that might be happening in DC, this case is a good one to follow.

Oral arguments are scheduled for today.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Get Skinny in 2025: Adopt a Handbook Just for Temps

Everyone has New Year’s Resolutions. Except me. My wife asks me every year, and every year I politely decline. She doesn’t like when I do that.

Some people pledge to lose weight, to get skinnier. This post is about getting skinny with your handbook for 2025—just for temps.

Do you provide your employee handbook to staffing agency temps? Should you?

Generally, I would say no, you should not. The handbook is filled with information about benefits that apply only to your direct employees, not temps. The handbook also probably directs and controls what your workers do, in ways that could make you a joint employer.

Instead, consider rolling out a skinny handbook just for temps.

There are a few polices that should apply to staffing agency temps, and it’s to your benefit to make clear—in writing— that these policies apply. It can be about 6-8 pages. That’s all you need.

Outline for Handbook for Temps

1) Equal Employment Opportunity

  • Anti-Discrimination
  • Anti-Harassment
  • Complaint Procedure
  • No Retaliation

2) Site Safety

  • Drug and alcohol
  • Weapons
  • Workplace Threats and Violence
  • Accidents, Emergencies, Reporting of Injuries
  • Searches, Screening

That’s it. You can include a welcome message too if you’d like. Maybe add a call-off procedure. Check whether references to “employees” should be changed to “workers” or something similar that doesn’t sound like you are conceding joint employer status.

Creating a skinny handbook for temps should take no more than 2-3 hours. If you want to start the year with a quick accomplishment that will add value, this is a good one. And you can even claim it as your New Year’s Resolution.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Don’t Get Jailed Because of Your Fat Friend: More Tips on Arbitration Agreements and Joint Employment

A South Korean man was sentenced to one year in prison for binge eating and getting too fat.

It isn’t always illegal to get fat in South Korea, but it is if you do it to dodge mandatory military service, which is what this guy did. His friend, who created the weight-gain plan, was sentenced to six months for aiding and abetting. Yes, really. And his defense was that he didn’t think his friend would go through with it.

One criminal eater, but two men end up in the pokey. Getting in trouble for what someone else does sounds exactly like joint employment.

One issue that often arises in litigation is whether arbitration agreements apply to all defendants in a joint employment dispute. If a plaintiff has an arbitration agreement with his main employer but sues two companies as joint employers, can the second company rely on the first company’s arbitration agreement to get the whole case moved to arbitration?

Sometimes yes, but courts are split. It’s going to depend on the relationship between the parties and how the arbitration agreement is drafted. Let’s quickly address each of those points.

1) Courts are split.

In a recent California case, a grocery store employee sued his employer and a related entity for wage and hour claims. He argued that both were joint employers. He had an arbitration agreement only with the primary employer.

The California Court of Appeal (2d district) ruled that the arbitration agreement required the claims against both parties to go to arbitration. The plaintiff was not allowed to allege that the parties were so interrelated as to be joint employers, but too distinct for both to be covered by the arbitration agreement. The outcome may have been swayed by the close corporate relationship between the defendants. The outcome could be different if the alleged joint employers were unrelated, such as in a staffing agency relationship.

A few years earlier, however, the California Court of Appeal (1st district) reached the opposite conclusion, finding that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement could not enforce it.

2) It depends on how the agreement is drafted.

The best way to avoid this problem is to draft arbitration agreements to take the joint employment risk into account. Be thoughtful when defining the scope of covered claims and covered entities.

The agreement should apply to claims against the primary employer and related entities, as well as managers, supervisors, etc. Also consider adding third-party beneficiaries.

If employees will be providing services to another entity, such as in a staffing agency relationship, make sure those services are covered.

If your company is receiving the services and another company is the primary employer, check to see whether there’s an arbitration agreement in place, and review its scope.

If I am representing the company receiving the services, I like to require that as a condition of being allowed access to the property (or receiving confidential information, or whatever else), each individual must sign an arbitration agreement that covers claims against the company receiving the services. These can be short, one-page arbitration agreements. If drafted correctly, they do not suggest that there is any employment relationship.

Takeaways

  • Individual arbitration agreements with class waivers are a great way to avoid class action exposure and keep disputes out of public courts — but only if their scope is broad enough to cover the claims and parties.
  • If you are the company receiving services, ask the primary employer whether there are individual arbitration agreements in place and ask to see them.
  • Require anyone providing services, even if not your employee, to sign a contract agreeing to arbitrate claims, and make it a condition of being allowed to work on the property.
  • And most important of all, never help a skinny Korean get fat to avoid military service.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Better Than Stealing a Car: Updates to Illinois Temp Worker Law Should Help Businesses Using Temp Labor

A Florida car thief may want to reconsider his career choice.

A Miami Beach man walked back to his Corvette after a Starbucks run, only to find a wannabe thief trapped inside. The thief became trapped inside because the car has electrical locks and no manual door handle. The car requires a key to unlock the doors.

The thief begged the car’s owner for help, but without success. The car’s owner videotaped the ridiculousness and called the police. That’s bad news for the thief.

Business owners in Illinois had much better news recently, when Gov. Pritzker signed amendments to the state’s temporary worker law. The law was last amended in 2023, when it created new burdens for businesses using staffing agency temp labor. (See here and here.)

The main problem business owners had with the 2023 amendment was that staffing agencies were required to pay temps “not less than the rate of pay and equivalent benefits” of comparable employees at the business where they were providing services. The only way staffing agencies could ensure compliance with this requirement was to obtain wage and benefit data from its client. Obviously, businesses did not want to provide that information. (A court decision struck down the “equivalent benefits” requirement.)

Under the 2024 amendment, a staffing agency can now comply with the pay requirements in two ways.

First, it can match the straight-time hourly rate of a comparator employee who works directly for the client, as before.

Second, they can now determine compensation without the need for comparator data from the client business. Under the amendment, the staffing agency can instead comply with the pay requirements by paying its workers based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

The pay requirements do not apply until a temp worker has worked 720 hours at the client business within a 12-month period.

The change to the law means that businesses retaining staffing agencies in Illinois will no longer be required to provide wage and benefits information about its comparator employees. The client, not the staffing agency, gets to choose whether to provide the data and, if the client chooses not to provide it (which I expect will most often be the case), the agency must use the BLS formula.

There are other changes to the law too, including amended benefit requirements, notice requirements, and the right of temp workers to decline to cross a picket line.

Staffing work might not pay great, but laws like the Illinois temp worker law seek to ensure a minimum level of pay for temp workers. The Miami Beach car thief may want to look into steady work like that instead, if he ever gets out of the Corvette.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Filled Up With Rules? Temp Worker Laws Are Still Being Challenged

Teacher, don’t you fill me up with your rules (fn1)

Brownsville Station was a rock band formed in Ann Arbor in 1969. (Go Blue!) Their biggest hit, Smokin’ in the Boys Room, reached #3 on the Billboard charts and was later covered by Motley Crue. The song was Motley Crue’s first Top 40 hit. Apparently LeeAnn Rimes covered the song too in an album called Nashville Outlaws: A Tribute to Motley Crue, which is I guess was her tribute to a tribute to Brownsville Station.

Business groups in New Jersey and Illinois have also been pleading don’t you fill me up with your rules – in particular, rules related to the use of temp workers.

As discussed here and here, these two states passed temporarily worker laws that required temps to be paid wages and benefits equivalent to the regular workers they are supplementing.

Those rules are both in effect, but there are still several moving parts you should know about.

In Illinois, a judge struck down the portion of the law that required payment of equivalent benefits, ruling that this portion of the law was preempted by ERISA. Illinois lawmakers are now considering options to amend the law to require the payment of the value of benefits, if not the benefits themselves.

In New Jersey, the law took effect, but there’s an active lawsuit in which staffing and other business groups have challenged the law. The case is pending. New Jersey Staffing Alliance et al. v. Fais et al., No. 1:23-cv-02494, D. N.J.

For now, these two temporary work laws remain in effect, except for the benefits aspect of the Illinois law. But the situation remains fluid. It also would not be surprising if other states enacted similar laws. Companies using temp labor should continue to monitor these developments.

fn1 – Everybody knows that smokin’ ain’t allowed in school.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Drink Up With This Tip to Save money in Your Staffing Agency Relationships

Five fisherman from Sri Lanka died last month after drinking the unknown liquid they found in bottles floating about 300 miles offshore. The fisherman reportedly believed the bottles contained foreign liquor.

Ceylon Today reports that efforts are underway to inform nearby fishing trawlers about the dangers of drinking from floating bottles. It’s a good thing the authorities are doing that because, otherwise, the most common sense thing to do when finding unidentified liquids is to drink them.

Better planning would have saved their lives. You can also plan better when negotiating your staffing agency agreements. Here’s a clause you can include that won’t save lives but will save money.

Overtime Multiplier Caps

When a non-exempt temp works more than 40 hours in a week, the worker must receive overtime pay of 1.5x. But that doesn’t mean you need to pay the same markup rate to the agency for that extra .5x premium.

Here’s what you can do instead.

Suppose you pay a 40% markup on the hourly rate the agency pays to its workers. For a worker receiving $10/hour, you pay the agency $14, The agency gets $4 in revenue for one hour of work provided.

But suppose the same worker works 50 hours in a week. The extra ten hours are paid to the worker at $15/hour, which means the agency gets $6 in revenue for those hours. Here’s the math: 15 x 1.4 = $21, less the $15 that goes back to the worker = $6.

Why should the agency get $6 instead of $4 for the same hour worked? It’s a windfall. You can cap that with an Overtime Multiplier Clause.

The clause would say, essentially, that for straight time, the agency gets a 40% premium. For overtime hours, the markup is the same 40% on the straight time (the 1.0x), then the overtime premium (the extra 0.5x) is reimbursed with no markup on the premiums portion of the pay (the 0.5x).

The worker gets $15, but you pay the agency $19 for that hour, not $21.

In future posts, I’ll address other money-saving clauses you can add to your staffing agency agreements.

In the meantime, remember not to drink from any bottles you may find floating at sea.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge