Tag Archives: test

01.02.24
by

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

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
 
11.13.23
by

No Unions? No Escape: NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule Imposes New Risks on Businesses Without Unions

TikTok star Matthew Lani earned a substantial following as a 27-year old medical prodigy, having graduated high school at age 16 before becoming a doctor. He posted videos of himself walking through a South African hospital, dishing out medical advice to his followers or selling them medication.

Lani, however, turns out not to be a doctor at all. When the ruse was uncovered and authorities went to arrest him, he said he had to pee and then tried to escape through a bathroom window. TikTok later banned his account.

The NLRB’s new joint employer rule has many employers trying to figure out whether they need a doctor or whether they can avoid the rule’s reach by escaping through a bathroom window.

Today we’ll answer questions about how the new joint employer rule affects non-union businesses.

We have no unions. Does the rule apply to me?

Yes, 100% yes. In fact, companies without unions may be most at risk here. If your business has vendors, suppliers, business partners, or even customers with employees, pay attention.

The point of the rule is that if your business exerts any control over any of the listed seven terms or conditions of employment, you’re a joint employer. In fact, the rule makes you a joint employer even if you merely have the right to exert control over one of these seven terms, even if you never do.

The listed terms and conditions are broader than the usual suspects, and they include control over health and safety matters.

If the other company’s workers are ever in your building while doing their jobs, you might be exercising control over their terms and conditions of employment without realizing it. Read more here.

What if the vendor’s employees don’t have a union?

Still yes. The rule may still directly affect your business’s rights and legal obligations.

What happens if I have no unions but am deemed a joint employer of someone else’s employees?

If you are a joint employer under the new rule, here’s what that means:

(1) If the other company’s employees form a union, your business would be required to participate in the collective bargaining process.

You’d be required to bargain regarding any term or condition that you have the authority to control. That could include your site-wide health and safety rules.

(2) If the other company’s employees have complaints about terms or conditions that your business can control, you cannot retaliate against them for raising these concerns.

Under federal labor law, all employees — including those not in unions — have the right to engage in protected concerted activity without being retaliated against.

Protected concerted activity can mean just about anything that involves more than one employee, including actions by one employee that are intended to seek support from other employees. Like an Instagram post or a Glassdoor review. Ending their assignment or asking the vendor to remove them from the project could be considered unlawful retaliation.

But these are not my employees? Why would I have to do these things?

Because joint employment.

The concept of joint employment is that more than one person can be the employer. If your business is deemed a joint employer of another company’s employees, then under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you’re also their employer.

What about wage and hour law, unemployment compensation, and workers comp? Would I be a joint employer under those laws too?

No. The new NLRB joint employer rule applies only to the NLRA. Other laws have other tests for determining who is a joint employer.

You can be a joint employer under the NLRA and not a joint employer under other laws. But a finding of joint employment under one law could make it more likely that your business is deemed a joint employer under other laws — particularly if you comply with the new NLRB rule by, let’s say, participating in collective bargaining.

Do I need a real doctor, or will a TikTok doctor be good enough?

All businesses should pay attention to the new NLRB joint employer rule, even if you don’t have unions.

Proactively evaluate your risk of joint employment under the new rule. The whole point of the law is that you may be an employer of other workers without realizing it.

And you can’t escape the reach of the rule by climbing through a bathroom window.

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
 
11.06.23
by

This Will Not Do! Health and Safety Rules May Create Joint Employment under New NLRB Rule

Ginsberg’s Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:

  1. There is a game.
  2. You can’t win.
  3. You can’t break even.
  4. You can’t even get out of the game.

That’s the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRB’s new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).

Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule — the NLRB’s decision to include “Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees” as an “essential term and condition of employment” for purposes of determining joint employer status.

Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.

Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.

Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
  2. Employees of vendors work onsite.
  3. Employees of vendors must comply.

Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over “working conditions related to the safety and health” of a vendor’s employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.

More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our site safety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.

The NLRB’s position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say you’re a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

Good morning, Worm your honor
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This will not do
Call the schoolmaster

What to do?

Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.

It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 — less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment — the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.

So what are businesses to do?

The answer can’t be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not — or should not — convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.

One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you don’t go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesn’t.

Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendor’s employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But it’s worth looking at your policy language.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Let’s also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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
 
11.06.23
by

This Will Not Do! Health and Safety Rules May Create Joint Employment under New NLRB Rule

Ginsberg’s Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:

  1. There is a game.
  2. You can’t win.
  3. You can’t break even.
  4. You can’t even get out of the game.

That’s the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRB’s new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).

Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule — the NLRB’s decision to include “Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees” as an “essential term and condition of employment” for purposes of determining joint employer status.

Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.

Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.

Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
  2. Employees of vendors work onsite.
  3. Employees of vendors must comply.

Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over “working conditions related to the safety and health” of a vendor’s employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.

More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our site safety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.

The NLRB’s position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say you’re a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

Good morning, Worm your honor
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This will not do
Call the schoolmaster

What to do?

Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.

It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 — less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment — the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.

So what are businesses to do?

The answer can’t be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not — or should not — convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.

One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you don’t go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesn’t.

Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendor’s employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But it’s worth looking at your policy language.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Let’s also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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
 
10.29.23
by

Feeling At Risk? You Might Be, Now That NLRB Issued New Joint Employer Rule

I took this picture on Friday of a window washer at the Hilton across the street.

Late last week, the NLRB issued its new joint employer rule. I’ve listed three takeways below. Don’t be left hanging. Click here for the full Alert.

1) The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule that changes the test for determining who is a joint employer.

2) The Final Rule rescinds the Rule enacted in 2020 and adopts a test that will vastly expand the circumstances under which a company is a joint employer of the employees of another company.

3) The new rule may cause absurd results, including creating joint employment from the application of worksite safety rules to everyone onsite, including a vendor’s employees. The new rule requires joint employers to participate in the collective bargaining process.

The full Alert explains in more detail. If you are not subscribed to BakerHostetler employment law alerts, let me know and I’ll add you to the distribution list.

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
 
09.05.23
by

Going to Rehab? Patients Can Still Be Employees, Says Court

Driving back from Ann Arbor after dropping off my youngest daughter at college, I decided it would be a good time to catch up on some albums I hadn’t heard in a while. Soon I settled on Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black, which was her second and final album, released in 2006. The article liked here describes the conversation with her father that led to the song.

If Amy had gone to rehab, it’s fair to assume she would not have expected to be considered an employee of the rehab center where she was being treated. That was probably the expectation of a number of rehab patients at a Texas facility too, but a court ruling last month found otherwise.

It’s true, the situation in this case was a bit unusual, but it still involves rehab patients being deemed employees of their rehab enter. Here’s how it went down.

The patients, as part of their treatment, were required to undergo vocational, on-the-job training at third parties, where they worked regular shifts. The third parties would pay the rehab center, and the fees were used to offset operating costs. The patients signed agreements that they did not expect compensation for their work.

The rehab center, though, essentially functioned as a staffing agency. It charged the third parties for the patients’ time, even charging time-and-a-half when they worked overtime hours. The patients saw none of that cash, and some of them sued.

A district court in Texas applied the economic realities test and found the patients to be acting as employees of the rehab center / staffing agency when it performed the offsite work. After discovery, the court certified a collective action under the FLSA, and the case is ongoing.

An interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed, with the appeals court holding that the district court applied the right test for determining whether the patients could have been employees.

This case, while still underway, is a good reminder that employment relationships can be created in unexpected ways. This time it was the rehab center that tried to say, no no no.

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
 
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
 
06.26.23
by

What if Everything You Knew…? DOL Targets Fall 2023 for New Independent Contractor Test

In school we all learned that the longest river is the Nile. But some say the Amazon is longer. In the atlas “Maps of Useful Knowledge” (1846), the Amazon was listed as 3200 miles and the Nile 2750 miles. The current U.S. Geological Survey shows the Nile at 4132 miles and the Amazon at 4000 miles. Brazilian researchers claim the Amazon is 4331 miles long and the Nile a mere 4258 miles.

So which is it, and how can it be changing? Apparently the controversy involves disputes over where the rivers start, where they end, and how to track changes in the rivers’ course.

Whatever you learned about the test for who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is subject to change too.

Remember October 2022? Elon Musk completed a $44B deal to take over twitter. Germany took steps to legalize marijuana. And the DOL released a proposed new regulation to modify the independent contractor test.

The proposed rule received more than 50,000 comments. We’ve been speculating about when the DOL might issue a final rule.

We’ve now learned that the DOL is targeting this fall for release of the new rule. The latest version of the regulatory agenda lists August as the target release date. August may be a bit ambitious, but the fall seems likely. On June 9, a federal court of appeals granted a motion by the DOL for a 120-day stay in a pending lawsuit. The DOL asked for the stay to allow it time to release the new rule.

You can read more about the proposed rule here.

So it seems that whatever we know now about the length of the Nile River, the length of the Amazon River, and the independent comntractor test under the FLSA is subject to change. Hopefully we’ll know more about all three by sometime this fall.

We can be pretty sure the final rule will closely resemble the multi-factor balancing test released in October 2022. Businesses can plan accordingly by being proactive in assessing their relationships with independent contractors and taking steps to reduce risk now.

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
 
06.12.23
by

What Is a “Borrowed Employee” (and Should You Run Runaway)?

The album Old New Borrowed and Blue was released in 1974 by the British rock band Slade. It reached No. 1 on the UK albums chart. Slade recorded the album shortly after a near-fatal car crash involving drummer Don Powell, who played drums on the album despite walking with a cane and needing to be lifted onto his drum stool.

For whatever reason, Slade doesn’t get much air play on classic rock stations in the US. I remember the songs “Run Runaway” and “My Oh My,” both released in 1984, but I don’t remember hearing much more from Slade.

Getting back to Old New Borrowed and Blue, the “Borrowed” portion of the title refers to the fact that at least one song, “Just Want a Little Bit,” was a cover. It wasn’t Slade’s song, until it was. They borrowed it and made it their own.

Can the same thing happen in employment settings? Yes, it can.

We often consider the concept of joint employment, but did you know there’s also a doctrine called the “borrowed employee” doctrine?

What is a “borrowed employee,” and why does it matter?

The concept of “borrowed employee” arises in negligence cases involving vicarious liability. The “borrowed employee” doctrine is a defense that can be asserted if an injured employee at one company alleges that an employee of another company negligently caused the injury. If your employees ever provide services for another company, pay attention.

We saw this doctrine in action earlier this month, in a case before the New Jersey Supreme Court. Pantano v. New York Shipping Association.

Philip Pantano, a mechanic employed by Container Services of New Jersey (CSNJ) had his foot crushed and amputated following a workplace accident. Pantano alleged that an employee of a different company, Marine Transport (MT), was negligent and caused the injury. Pantano claimed that MT was vicariously liable for that employee’s negligence and should have to pay for the damages. A jury agreed and awarded Pantano $861,000, on top of his workers’ compensation recovery.

The issue that went before the New Jersey Supreme Court centered around whether MT could be held vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence. The answer would depend on whether the MT employee who caused the accident was deemed a “borrowed employee” of CSNJ when the accident occurred. If MT could prove that the MT employee who caused the injury was a borrowed employee of CSNJ at the time of the accident, then MT is not vicariously liable, even though the worker was being paid by MT and was MT’s W2 employee.

The borrowed employee doctrine is a creation of state law. In New Jersey, there’s a two-part multi-factor test to determine whether someone is a “borrowed employee” for purposes of vicarious liability.

The first part of the test looks at control, which can be demonstrated through “direct evidence of on-spot control” or broad control based on method of payment, furnishing equipment, or having the right of termination. If the primary employer has control over the worker, then we go to part two of the test.

The second part of the test is the “business furtherance” prong. If the worker was furthering the primary employer’s business when committing the negligent act, then the primary employer is vicariously liable. “Business furtherance” is established under NJ law if (1) the work being done is within “the general contemplation” of the primary employer’s business, and (2) the primary employer derives economic benefit by loaning its employee.

Applying the test, a jury is supposed to determine whether the employee was acting on behalf of the primary employer, or was acting as a borrowed employee of the secondary employer, or if both are responsible.

Tip: It is in a primary employer’s interest to show that its loaned employee was acting as a “borrowed employee” of the other company at the time of the accident, if the injured employee was also employed by that other company.

Here’s why. If the employee who caused the accident was acting as a “borrowed employee” of the company that employed the injured worker, then the injured worker’s remedy is limited to workers’ compensation law. But if the accident was caused by the negligence of another company’s employee (and the worker is nit a “borrowed employee”), then the injured worker can bring a negligence claim against that other company.

If all of this is making your head hurt, remember a few things here:

1) When you lend an employee, make sure there’s worker’s compensation coverage all around.

2) When you lend an employee, make sure you have a well drafted agreement between the two companies. Allocation of risk should be addressed in advance.

Borrowing employees is commonplace. If you plan in advance, the arrangement can work well for both companies, and there’s no need to Run Runaway.

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
 
05.01.23
by

What is the Joint Employment Test under the FLSA? (And Why Are There So Many?)

In the Muppet Movie, Kermit famously wondered, “Why are there so many songs about rainbows?”

Articles in Psychology Today and Remind Magazine have attempted to answer this question. A blog post on the Tough Pigs website almost took a contrary view in a post titled “Why There AREN’T So Many Songs About Rainbows,” but that was a twitter gimmick asking for wrong answers only.

Turns out there are quite a few songs about rainbows. You can google it. There’s also a pretty good band called Rainbow (“Man on the Silver Mountain,” “Since You Been Gone”), and the University of Hawaii’s teams are the Rainbow Warriors, f/k/a just the Rainbows, which probably didn’t frighten much of their football competition in the Mountain West.

I’m inspired by Kermit’s lyrical question, but my thoughts stray in a different direction: Why are there so many … joint employment tests, just under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? Shouldn’t courts applying a federal law use the same test in every jurisdiction? Of course they should, but they don’t.

Here are the current tests for joint employment under the FLSA, in a nutshell:

The First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits apply a four-factor test based on a 1983 case called Bonette. The test considers whether the putative joint employer (1) can hire and fire employees, (2) controls employees’ work and employment conditions, (3) determines rates of pay, and (4) maintains employment records. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Second Circuit rejects the Bonette test as too focused on agency, instead applying a non-exclusive six-factor test. Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co, Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 71-76 (2d Cir. 2003).

The Eleventh Circuit applies an eight-factor test that includes the Bonette factors and adds factors related to economic dependence. Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (11th Cir. 2012).

The Fourth Circuit is having none of what the other circuits are having and goes in an entirely different direction. The Fourth Circuit’s test compares the two putative employers to determine whether they are “completely dissociated.” Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2017); Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757 (4th Cir. 2017). The Fourth Circuit’s test is so far off the mark that it relies on a (mis)interpretation of a federal regulation that no longer exists.

And speaking of federal regulations that no longer exist, the Department of Labor’s regulation defining joint employment under the FLSA? You guessed it. It no longer exists.

In 2021, the DOL rescinded the joint employer regulation that had been adopted by the Trump DOL in 2020. The 2020 regulation has rescinded the previous regulation, which had been around for decades. No new regulation has been adopted, and so there is no regulation. Part 791 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, formerly home to the DOL’s joint employment regulation, is empty.

So, why are there so many tests for joint employment? No good reason. There just are.

But that could change. Following a recent Ninth Circuit decision tagging Los Angeles County as a joint employer, L.A. County has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the joint employment test. So we’ll see what happens there. A conservative Supreme Court majority might recognize how absurd it is that one federal statute can be interpreted so many different ways. Maybe they’ll take the case and announce one test for everyone.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for the joint employer test under the FLSA, you’ll need to look in several places. The test depends on where you are. All of us under its spell. We probably know that it’s ma-gic!

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