Tag Archives: Supreme Court

01.29.24
by

The Clash: Supreme Court to Decide About Arbitration in a Misclassification Case

The 1982 release by the Clash asked, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” The song included backing vocals in Spanish, but since none of the band members spoke Spanish, they had tape operator, Eddie, call his mother, who was Ecuadorian. Eddies’ mom translated the backing vocals into what we hear on the recording (Yo me enfrio o lo soplo).

The Supreme Court agreed last month to address the same question — should I stay or should I go? — but in a different context.

The case involves independent contractors who sued, alleging misclassification, the contractors had signed individual arbitration agreements, and the business successfully moved to compel arbitration. So far, this is all very ordinary.

But when a court sends a case to arbitration, should it stay the case or dismiss it? Different federal courts handle this differently. There’s a good ol’ fashioned circuit split, and the Supreme Court will decide whether courts have the discretion to dismiss cases instead of merely staying them.

Why does it matter? In most cases, it won’t matter. But there are varying points of view. A dismissed case can be appealed; the decision to stay a case usually cannot. A stayed case may require updates to be filed; a dismissed case does not. A stayed case may lead to a streamlined order adopting the arbitrator’s decision; a dismissed case would require a new filing.

Sometimes cases have claims that are subject to arbitration and claims that are not. In those instances, a stay is probably the only logical option. When the arbitration is done, the court will decide the remaining claims. But when all parties have agreed, by contract, that their dispute must be arbitrated, many courts see no basis for staying the case, and they dismiss it.

The textualist argument is that a stay is the only way to go (see what I did there?). Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act says that a court, “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had….”

But if there’s no dispute that the court can hear, because all parties have agreed to arbitrate disputes, then there’s nothing left for the court, and dismissal would seem proper.

We’ll continue to watch this case. The Supreme Court will likely hear the matter in late 2024.

In the meantime, This indecision’s buggin’ me (esta indecisión me molesta).

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
 
07.03.23
by

Still a Chunky Stew: California’s ABC Test Survives Supreme Court Challenge

The song “Rock & Roll Stew” was released by Traffic as a single, off its excellent 1971 album, The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys. The stew is a reference to the messy life of playing gigs in clubs around the world. (This stew, of course, refers to the meal, not the anthropomorphic similar-sounding Stu, as referenced in Led Zeppelin’s “Boogie with Stu,” with this Stu being a real person, namely Ian Stewart, who was the Rolling Stones’ road manager and piano player and who sat at the keyboard one day to help Jimmy Page tune his guitar, a collaboration that resulted in this mostly improvised song, which is catchy and fun.)

Stew, according to allrecipes.com, is like a soup but chunkier. When making a stew, you can toss in meats and vegetables and whatever else you’re trying to get rid of in your refrigerator to make room before you go to Costco.

A messy chunky stew also seems like a good description of California’s ABC Test, which seems straightforward enough at first but, in reality, is chock full of meaty exceptions, most of which seem completely arbitrary.

The exceptions to the ABC Test are laid out in California Labor Code sections 2776 through 2785. The structure of the California law goes basically like this: When determining if someone is an employee or an independent contractor, use the ABC Test except in a whole bunch of situations or professions or circumstances, in which you would not use the ABC Test. There are dozens and dozens of exceptions to the ABC Test, and you just about need a decision tree to figure them out. The lines that have been drawn to determine whether some of the exceptions apply can also be maddening to understand, and they too seem arbitrary.

In a case brought by Mobilize the Message LLC, some of these lines were challenged on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment.

More specifically, the argument was that the law creates two classes of canvassers and distributors of literature, with different outcomes depending on whether they are engaging in political speech. The law allows promoters of consumer goods and distributors of newspapers to be classified as independent contractors, but it subjects promoters of political campaigns to the ABC Test, making it much more likely that they would be deemed employees.

Mobilize the Message LLC argued that the law discriminated against political speech by imposing more substantial burdens on those who engage in it than those who do not.

In October 2022, the Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, ruling that there was no First Amendment violation. The petitioner then sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But late last month, the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

That means the Ninth Circuit ruling will stand, and the ABC Test — with its arbitrary lines — lives another day, even if the law subjects workers engaging in political speech to a different set of rules.

The ABC Test remains a messy stew, chock full of meaty (and vegetable-y) exceptions. But businesses operating in California have no choice but to learn it and digest it, no matter how chunky and confusing the mystery meat may be.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
01.18.22
by

More Than One Iota: Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Scope of Arbitration Law; Outcome Will Affect Independent Contractor Agreements

Last week I read that Sirhan Sirhan had been denied parole again. No surprise there. But what captured my attention was his attorney’s comment that there was not “one iota” of evidence he would be a threat to society if released.

Not even one iota? Why are there never any iotas? And what is the plural of iota anyway? And how do you even respond to that? Well, actually, we had a few iotas. Let me check my notes here. Yes, three iotas.

“Iota” means an infinitesimal amount. Synonyms include bupkus and diddly-squat. But if you search for “iota” online, no one ever has any iotas. The word is always used in the negative.

Well here are a few iotas for you. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that will affect when arbitration agreements with independent contractors can be enforced. The Supreme Court generally gets involved when there are at least a few iotas of good arguments on both sides.

Both cases address the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which creates a presumption that arbitration agreements should be enforced, but includes a few iotas of carveouts.

In the first case, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the Supreme Court will determine whether cases brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) are subject to arbitration. California courts have said they are not.

In the second case, Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the Court will address the scope of the Section 1 exemption, which makes the FAA inapplicable to certain types of transportation workers in interstate commerce. The Saxon decision is likely to clear up the mass confusion (and circuit split) over whether last mile delivery drivers and local rideshare fall within the exemption.

In the political arena, arbitration agreements have come under fire, and there is a movement among Democrats to abolish mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, appears more likely to enforce the contracts as written, deferring to the contractual intent of the parties and interpreting any exemptions to the FAA narrowly.

There is more than one iota of evidence to support both sides of these disputes. But expect some 6-3s.

If I am pulling out my crystal ball, I expect the Supreme Court will uphold the arbitration agreements, at least in Saxon. Moriana is tougher to predict since PAGA is a state law creation in which the individual bringing the claim acts as a private attorney general, bringing the claim on behalf of the state. On one hand, the state never agreed to arbitrate. But on the other hand, the individual bringing the PAGA claim did agree to arbitrate any disputes, not to bring them in court under the guise of PAGA.

Whenever the Court rules, we’ll see arbitration agreements back in the news. More visibility on this issue will mean louder and more urgent calls from politicians to abolish pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

We can expect many iotas of news on arbitration agreements later in 2022.

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

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

2018_Web100Badge
 
04.29.19
by

Meatloaf Lyrics Inspire Supreme Court; Arbitration Agreements Can Be Implied to Include Class Action Waivers

Meatloaf Lamps Plus Arbitration agreements independent contractorhttps://youtu.be/_wO8toxinoc

Meatloaf’s “You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth” opens with a dialogue by Jim Steinman, who wrote the song, and actress Marcia McClain, who played Dee Stewart in the soap opera As the World Turns. He asks, “On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?”

For a quick trip back to 1978-79, listen to the album version, not the shortened single, which cut out the dialogue, presumably because it distracted the roller skaters. The song is about teenage lovers and passion, and the lyrics are rich with intense imagery.

Offering a new twist on this old classic, the Supreme Court last week issued a ruling on arbitration agreements that can be paraphrased as “You took the words right out of the air because they weren’t in my arbitration agreement.” This decision will inflame passions in the pro-worker camp, but it’s a good decision for businesses. The case is called Lamps Plus v. Varela.

Continue reading →

01.22.19
by

Supreme Court Ruling May Stop Enforcement of Some Contractors’ Arbitration Agreements

New Prime v Olivieri double decker bus

The year 1925 was a banner year for transportation. Walter Percy Chrysler founded the Chrysler Corporation, London introduced its first double decker bus, and Malcolm Campbell became the first person to exceed 150 mph in an aero-engined car, accomplishing the feat at Pendine Sands in Wales. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Meanwhile, back in the States, American courts had developed a habit of not enforcing arbitration agreements, and Congress was determined to change that. In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which is the law that allows parties to agree to arbitrate disputes and which tells courts to respect those agreements, subject to a few limited exceptions.

Those exceptions were at issue in the Supreme Court case of New Prime v. Olivieri, decided last week in an 8-0 decision. 

The Court ruled that:

(1) If there is a question about whether the FAA applies to an arbitration agreement, a court — not an arbitrator — decides whether the FAA protects the arbitration agreement. 

(2) The FAA’s exception — which says the FAA does not cover workers in the transportation industry — applies not just to employees in the transportation industry but also independent contractors. In other words, the FAA does not protect arbitration agreements entered into by independent contractors in the transportation industry.  

For business owners who wish to use arbitration agreements with their workers, what does this ruling mean?

I.  Who decides who decides?

Sometimes an arbitrator decides whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, and sometimes a court decides. Last month in the Henry Schein case, the Supreme Court held that an arbitrator can decide, in most instances, whether a dispute is covered under an arbitration agreement.

But last week’s New Prime case draws a distinction about who decides if the issue is whether the FAA applies to the dispute.

So, to simplify: On the issue of who decides whether a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, what’s the rule now? 

1. If the issue is whether the FAA protects the arbitration agreement, a court decides whether the FAA applies or not. (That’s the New Prime decision.)

2. If the FAA does apply and the issue is whether a particular dispute is subject to the agreement to arbitrate, then the arbitrator decides whether a dispute is subject to the agreement to arbitrate — assuming that the arbitration agreement has delegated to the arbitrator the ability to decide. (That’s the Henry Schein decision.)

The last sentence in Point 2 is the reason companies should consider adding a clause to their arbitration agreements saying that the arbitrator decides questions of arbitrability.

II.  How does the New Prime ruling apply to arbitration agreements with independent contractors? 

For independent contractors not in the transportation industry, this ruling does not apply. Arbitration agreements with independent contractors are generally enforceable and are protected by the FAA.

But how do we know the FAA doesn’t apply to all independent contractors in interstate commerce?

To answer that question, we need to head back to the Year 2001, a year after the electronic calendar shifted away from 19xx and technically-inclined doomsday prophets foretold of planes falling out of the sky. Shortly after mankind endured this potential calendar-caused calamity, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Circuit City Stores v. Adams.

The issue in Circuit City was whether the FAA applies to arbitration agreements between employers and employees. There is a carve out provision in the FAA, saying that the law favoring arbitration does not apply to “to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

The issue in Circuit City was whether the carve out for “contracts of employment” of “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” was intended to be broad and apply to all employees in interstate commerce or just those in the transportation industry. What was the intended meaning of “workers engaged in … interstate commerce”?

In Circuit City, the Court ruled that:

(1) the FAA generally does apply to arbitration agreements between employers and employees, but

(2) the FAA does not apply to workers in the transportation industry.

The Court decided that the phrase “workers engaged in … interstate commerce” was intended to refer only to workers in the transportation industry, not all workers. Arbitration agreements with employees in industries other than transportation would be enforceable under the FAA.

But that decision left open an important issue: What about independent contractors in the transportation industry? Do they have “contracts of employment”? Does the FAA apply to their arbitration agreements or not?

Fast forward to last week’s New Prime case.

The Supreme Court ruled that when the FAA was written in 1925, the phrase “contracts of employment” was understood to mean all work engagements, not just employer-employee relationships. Our understanding of the word “employment” has changed over time and, if that phrase were used in a statute today, it would likely refer only to true employer-employee relationships. But in 1925, it meant all work.

The Court therefore ruled that the FAA’s carve out applies to all workers in the transportation industry, regardless of whether such workers are employees or independent contractors. This means that arbitration agreements signed by employees or independent contractors in the transportation industry are not covered by the FAA, and therefore their agreements to arbitrate disputes are not protected by the FAA. Those disputes might have to go to court.

So what happens now?

First, the ruling is narrower than it may seem. The Court ruled only that the FAA did not apply to independent contractors’ arbitration agreements in the transportation industry.  It did not rule that these arbitration agreements were automatically void.

Many states have their own statutes that protect arbitration as a means for resolving disputes. Companies with workers in the transportation industry should check whether there is a state law that can be applied to protect these arbitration agreements.  If it would be reasonable to apply that state’s law, then companies should consider choosing that state’s law in the arbitration agreement’s Choice of Law provision. The right state’s law might still be able to save the arbitration agreement. We can expect further litigation on this subject, but here’s a tip for now. Try to pick a state with a favorable arbitration statute if your workers are in the transportation industry.

Second, we can expect the next battle to be over the meaning of the phrase, “transportation industry.” Does the “transportation industry” include only workers who transport goods across state lines? Or does the “transportation industry” include independent contractor drivers who transport passengers across town (such as ride share) or who deliver your pizza?

In Circuit City, the Supreme Court looked favorably on other court decisions that had defined the “transportation industry” to mean those workers “actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.” If that holds true, then local drivers of passengers and late-night food cravings should be considered not part of the “transportation industry.” The FAA, therefore, would still apply to those workers.

But we can expect the plaintiffs’ bar to argue for a broad interpretation of the “transportation industry.” We can now expect to see arguments that rideshare drivers and local delivery drivers are in the “transportation industry” and that their arbitration agreements are not protected by the FAA. I think that argument is incorrect, but I do expect to see it.

I would expect Courts of Appeal (and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court) to adopt a narrow view of the “transportation industry,” meaning that the FAA still applies to independent contractors who transport people or make local deliveries. I expect the courts to rule that the carve out from the FAA exempts only those workers (employees and contractors) who routinely transport goods across state lines.

For now, here’s what you need to know:

  • Arbitration agreements with independent contractors in the “transportation industry” are not protected by the FAA. It may be more difficult to enforce those arbitration agreements unless they are governed by the law of a state with its own arbitration statute.
  • Arbitration agreements with independent contractors outside of the transportation industry should remain enforceable under the FAA.

And the bottom line for me is that maybe it’s time for self-driving cars.

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, Philadelphia on Feb. 26, or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

01.17.19
by

Fecal Matter Meets Electrical Wind Machine: NLRB Scrambles to Re-Evaluate Joint Employment

NLRB rulemaking update browniong-ferris Hits the fanAccording to the British site, The Phrase Finder, the expression When the shit hits the fan “alludes to the unmissable effects of shit being thrown into an electric fan.” That’s lovely. The Cambridge Dictionary (also U.K.) describes the idiom a bit more delicately: “also, when the shit flies, [when] a situation suddenly causes a lot of trouble for someone.”

Thank you, British internet!

In any event, this expression seems to capture the predicament the NLRB suddenly finds itself in after the D.C. Court of Appeals issued its unexpected ruling a couple weeks ago in the ongoing Browning-Ferris case, which we wrote about here.

The ruling vastly complicated the NLRB’s efforts to adopt a more pro-business definition of “joint employment” that would require direct control over essential terms of employment before joint employment could be found. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the meaning of “joint employment” under the National Labor Relations Act is determined by the common law Right to Control Test, and that the NLRB has no authority to change the definition in a way that is inconsistent with the common law meaning.

The common law Right to Control Test, to the current Board’s dismay, allows for a finding of joint employment when control is reserved, even if the right to control is not actually exercised. That ruling is contrary to the definition being proposed by the NLRB as part of its ongoing effort to enact a new regulation through the rulemaking process.

Since the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling, here’s what’s been happening:

First, two key Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Board Chair John Ring, asking that the Board abandon its rulemaking effort in light of the court’s ruling. Nice effort, but that’s not likely to happen.

Second, “in light of the unique circumstance” posed by the court’s decision, the Board has again extended the period for the public to submit comments on the proposed rule. The new deadline is January 28, 2019, with reply comments due February 11, 2019. This is the third time the Board has extended the comment period. The second extension inspired one of my favorite posts, “Amazon Users (espec. Cindy, Amy & kris), Please Don’t Submit Comments On the NLRB’s Proposed Joint Employment Rule,” which if you missed, it’s not too late.

So what happens next?  The Board has a few options:

1. It can change the proposed rule to allow for a finding of joint employment when a company reserves the right to exercise control, even if the control is indirect and is never actually exercised, but only if the right to control covers “essential” terms and conditions of employment. That change would be consistent with the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling, but it’s not as sweeping a change as current pro-business Board majority would like.

2. It can plow forward with its current rulemaking plan and ignore the D.C. Court of Appeals. The NLRB typically ignores decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeal on the basis that there are 12 regional federal Courts of Appeal and they don’t always agree, while on the other hand, the NLRB’s authority is national, not regional. This approach often results in circuit splits, in which Courts of Appeal issue contradictory rulings, a situation that generally results in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding the issue once and for all. If the NLRB takes this approach, a circuit split could develop, and the Supreme Court would be likely to get involved, but it would probably take years before that wound its way up to the Supreme Court.

3. It can ask the full slate of D.C. Court of Appeals judges to re-hear the case. This is called an en banc proceeding. Since the decision was 2-1, there could be some momentum toward the full slate of judges agreeing to reconsider the case, but even if that happens, there is no guarantee the ruling would be any different.

4. The D.C. Court of Appeals decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could decide to hear the case, or it could decline and allow the law to further develop. The Supreme Court often waits to hear what other Courts of Appeal have to say before it issues a final decision. But even if the Supreme Court takes the case, there is no assurance that the NLRB will get the ruling it wants.

Here’s why. On one hand, the newly constituted Supreme Court is more conservative and is regarded as more pro-business, which would appear to suggest support for the outcome that the pro-business NLRB would want — authority to narrow the definition of joint employment to situations in which control is directly exercised, not merely reserved.

But on the other hand, the current Supreme Court seems less and less inclined to defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutes. While the current Supreme Court may be sympathetic to the outcome desired by the NLRB, it is unlikely to be sympathetic to the process by which the NLRB wants to achieve that outcome. The Supreme Court’s current members seem inclined to limit the authority of federal agencies to re-interpret the law.

There are lots of ways the joint employment saga might play out. But for now, it’s fair to say that the D.C. Court of Appeals decision was unexpected and messy, in a way that alludes to the unmissable effects of excrement being thrown into an electric fan (as the Brits might say).

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, Philadelphia on Feb. 26, or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

2018_Web100Badge
01.14.19
by

After Supreme Court Ruling, Be Sure Your Arbitration Agreements Contain These Two Essential Clauses!

Hyena supreme court henry schein arbitration

I never thought hyenas essential
They’re crude and unspeakably plain
But maybe they’ve a glimmer of potential
If allied to my vision and brain

– “Be Prepared,” The Lion King

The song goes on to warn that “you can’t be caught unawares.” Be prepared. The song neglects to remind companies to check their arbitration agreements for two essential clauses, but that’s why you have me.

The Supreme Court delivered its first Kavanaugh-authored opinion late last week. It was a short, punchy, and unanimous decision with no mention of cartoon hyenas or warthogs, but it clarifies an important point under federal arbitration law: If an agreement calls for disputes to be resolved by an arbitrator, a court cannot override that contractual agreement — even to decide a threshold question like whether the dispute is subject to arbitration.

This is a case of Who decides who decides.

Many arbitration agreements contain carve-outs, saying that certain types of disputes are not subject to arbitration. A common carve-out allows parties to go to court to get an injunction to prevent imminent harm.

The issue here was whether a carve-out like that could be presumed by the court (since it was not explicitly in the agreement), or whether the arbitrator had to decide what was subject to arbitration. The court ruled:

When the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the courts must respect the parties’ decision as embodied in the contract.

How does this apply to you?  Two important points:

First, carve-outs: Your arbitration agreements should be drafted to include carve-outs that allow parties to go to court to seek injunctive relief to prevent imminent harm. Specific types of disputes should not be subject to arbitration. If your employee or contractor is about to reveal a trade secret, you need the ability to run to court and get immediate relief. Arbitration is too slow to prevent that danger.

Second, arbitrability: If you fear that a court might invalidate the arbitration agreement or attempt to override it, include a provision like this: “Any disputes regarding whether an issue is subject to arbitration shall be resolved by the arbitrator.”

This case was decided under the Federal Arbitration Act, which is the federal law that favors enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes, subject to a few limited exceptions. One of those exceptions is also now before the Supreme Court in New Prime v. Olivieri, a case we discussed here. It relates to independent contractors in the transportation industry and whether the Federal Arbitration Agreement applies. A decision in New Prime will be issued sometime this term.

Arbitration agreements are an important tool that should be in your toolbox, especially if your company is concerned about class action claims, either from employees or independent contractors.

Be prepared.

For more information on joint employment, gig economy issues, and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2019, join me in Orlando on Jan. 24, Philadelphia on Feb. 26, or Chicago on Mar. 21 for the 2019 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Meeting Today’s Challenges. Advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com. If you list my name in your RSVP, I will have your registration fee waived.

© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

2018_Web100Badge

 

08.16.18
by

When Are Shareholders Also Employees? (Disney-Themed Version)

When are shareholders considered employees

I have always believed that in the song made famous by Happy, Dopey, Sneezy and friends, they were saying “Off to work we go,” but I just checked a few sites for lyrics and the lyrics all show the dwarves singing, “It’s home from work we go.” Can this be true? Have I been mixed up all these years about which way the dwarves were going to dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick?

Work can be confusing. A non-cartoon-dwarf scenario that can be confusing is trying to determine whether shareholders in a business are also employees of that business. In today’s post, we examine that question by celebrating the 15th anniversary of a 2003 Supreme Court case. (Happy Anniversary, case! 🎂)

Like many tests for determining Who Is My Employee?, this one comes down to control and the familiar Right to Control Test.

In Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, an employee of this Oregon-based medical clinic tried to sue for disability discrimination under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To bring claim under the ADA, though, the plaintiff must show that her employer has 15 or more employees.

The clinic had four owner/shareholders who were also physicians. If they were also employees, then the clinic had 15 employees and Ms. Wells could pursue her ADA lawsuit. If these physicians were just shareholders and not employees, then the clinic had fewer than 15, and Ms. Wells would be SOL.

The dispute made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the proper way to determine whether the physician/shareholders counted as employees was to apply a Right to Control Test. But which version?

The standard Right to Control Test tries to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. Because the question here is a bit different, the test had to be adapted to fit the situation.

The Court decided that these six factors were most important for deciding whether the physician/shareholders were also employees:

1. Whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set the rules and regulations of the individual’s work;
2. Whether and, if so, to what extent the organization supervises the individual’s work;
3. Whether the individual reports to someone higher in the organization;
4. Whether and, if so, to what extent the individual is able to influence the organization;
5. Whether the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written agreements or contracts; and
6. Whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.

Like the traditional Right to Control Test, this is a balancing test. Some factors may weigh in one direction, some may tilt the other way. Ultimately, a judge (or jury) needs to weigh the factors and make a determination.

In this case, the Supreme Court did not do the weighing. Instead, it articulated the test and sent the case back to the Oregon district court to weigh the factors.

So for Ms. Wells, the case left the Supreme Court and went back to the federal court in Oregon. And so the real question is: For Ms. Wells after the Supreme Court’s ruling, was it “off to court we go” (headed back to Oregon) or “home from court we go” (leaving D.C.)? I bet she never thought about that.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

05.21.18
by

Epic Ruling Clears Path: Arbitration Agreements Can Save Millions in Independent Contractor Misclassification Claims

Arbitration agreements for independent contractorsToday in the Epic Systems case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that in employer-employee relationships, mandatory arbitration agreements with class action waivers are lawful.

A class action waiver means that employees cannot file class actions. They must instead bring any claim individually to arbitration, one person at a time, even if there are a lot of others in the same situation.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the employers could require employees to sign these agreements.

  • The argument for allowing the agreements was that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) favors arbitration as a way to resolve disputes and says that most attempts to invalidate arbitration agreements are against the law. But there are narrow exceptions.
  • The argument against allowing the agreements was that the NLRA grants workers the right to engage in protected concerted activity, and filing class actions (they argue) is a type of protected concerted activity.

The court had to decide whether the NLRA’s right to engage in protected concerted activity created an exception to the FAA’s rule favoring arbitration. As expected, the conservative court held that mandatory employee arbitration agreements — including class action waivers — are lawful.  In other words, businesses may require their employees to sign away their right to bring class actions. Read that again slowly. It’s important.

What does this mean for independent contractor agreements?

The decision does not directly address independent contractor agreements, but the decision does say that the Supreme Court has rejected every other challenge to the FAA’s policy favoring arbitration.

It seems pretty safe, then, to assume that the Court would allow mandatory arbitration agreements, with class action waivers, in independent contractor agreements.

Should businesses include mandatory arbitration provisions in independent contractor agreements?

There are pros and cons to arbitration, and the answer depends largely on how reliant your business is on independent contractor relationships as part of the business model. In other words, are you at risk of a class action?

If yes you are, then yes you probably should. (But please consult counsel.)

Businesses that may be at risk of a widespread finding of independent contractor misclassification can use these agreements to prevent class actions from being filed. If contractors who claim misclassification have to bring their claims individually, there is a lot less money at stake and, strategically, the incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers to take these cases is greatly diminished. Few lawyers will take a case that may be worth a few thousand dollars (or often less). Most lawyers would love a case that may be worth a few million dollars. The difference is in the numbers. Class action waivers can greatly reduce your company’s risk of a large misclassification verdict.

Other advantages of arbitration include:

  • The results of individual arbitrations can be kept confidential, unlike court decisions. That means a finding against you will not hit the social media feeds or trade publications;
  • The parties select the arbitrator, which means you can ensure that your fact finder is a lawyer or has a background in the industry or type of dispute involved;
  • There’s no risk of a runaway jury, populated by regular folks who might have an axe to grind and no sense of the value of money;
  • The dispute gets resolved quickly, with finality, and with no right to appeal (except in very limited circumstances)

But there are potential downsides to arbitrations too:

  • Filing fees can be expensive;
  • Arbitrators can be expensive too. They get paid by the hour, unlike a judge who is not being paid by either side (we hope);
  • The barrier for employees to bring a claim is lower. They don’t need an attorney, and they can initiate a claim with ease, which could mean that more individual claims would be filed than if employees had to go to court;
  • There is no right to appeal (except in limited circumstances). This is both an advantage and a disadvantage, depending on whether you win!

Arbitration agreements have pros and cons, but for businesses that make substantial use of independent contractors, an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver can be critically important in avoiding a large claim.

One final reminder: If you use an mandatory arbitration agreement, remember to include a class action waiver. That’s one of the main benefits of these agreements.

Please consult with your employment lawyer to decide whether arbitration agreements are right for your business.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

03.12.18
by

Arbitrator or Court: Who Decides Who Decides?

New prime v olioviera - who decides who decides

Who decides who decides? That’s as fun to write as it is to think about.

On TV, sometimes the parties agree that Judge Judy can decide. (Here’s how that works.) But sometimes, the parties disagree over who decides. What happens then? Who decides who decides?

That’s an issue the Supreme Court is going to consider, as it relates to arbitration agreements for independent contractors in the transportation industry.

The dispute stems from an arbitration agreement between Dominic Oliviera, an independent contractor (although he’s not so sure of that), and New Prime, Inc., a trucking company. Their arbitration agreement says that all disputes go to arbitration, including those about the scope of what gets arbitrated. In other words, the arbitrator gets to decide whether something is subject to arbitration. (That’s not an unusual clause, by the way.)

Our protagonist Mr. O tried to bring a lawsuit, claiming wage and hour violations by New Prime. In response, New Prime pointed to the contract and said the issue had to be arbitrated. Not to be outwitted, however, Mr. O then pointed to an exception in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA is the federal law favoring arbitration of disputes, but the FAA contains an exception. The FAA doesn’t apply to employees in the transportation industry.

I hope I haven’t bored you because here’s where it gets interesting.

If the FAA exception applies, Mr. O doesn’t have to arbitrate and he can go to court with his wage and hour claims instead.

But the exception only applies (it seems) if he is an employee. If he’s an independent contractor, the FAA should still apply, which means that New Prime can still force him into arbitration.

Now here’s where it gets really weird.

The agreement says that the arbitrator gets to decide whether the matter is subject to arbitration. But Mr. O says he’s an employee and therefore he’s not bound by the arbitration agreement. If he’s not bound by the arbitration agreement, then New Prime can’t force him to go to the arbitrator to decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. So, who decides who decides?

Still with me? Here’s the bottom line. There are two important questions that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider in this case:

(1) Whether a dispute over applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause; and
(2) whether the FAA’s Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to “contracts of employment,” is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

For businesses using mandatory arbitration agreements, these are important issues.

Last week, in this post, we addressed Issue #2. But Issue #1 is also pretty important for businesses with arbitration agreements in the transportation industry. If the validity of those agreements is contested, who decides whether they are valid?

If the arbitrator gets to decide what is subject to arbitration, the realist deep inside you (he’s roommates with the pessimist) expects that the arbitrator will keep the case. In other words, the most likely ruling by the arbitrator — who is paid by the parties by the hour to conduct the arbitration — is that the matter is going to be subject to arbitration. After all, that’s what the contract says, and if the contract didn’t apply, then the arbitrator never would have gotten involved in the first place.

This case won’t be decided until next year.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.