Why I Can’t Give You a Template Independent Contractor Agreement

Independent contractor vs employee template independent contractor agreement - generic independent contractor agreement - IMG_1112I am often asked for a sample Independent Contractor Agreement. I do a lot of work in this area, so I should have plenty, right? Well, sure, I have drafted dozens, but they won’t do you much good.

A generic Independent Contractor Agreement that includes a few boilerplate recitals is of little value. A generic agreement probably says something like, “We all agree that you’re an independent contractor and not an employee. We won’t pay employment taxes for you. We’re not paying into your Social Security account or providing you workers’ comp or unemployment coverage. We’re not giving you benefits. You’re lucky if we let you breathe the air in our building. No, you know what, bring your own oxygen tank. You can’t use our air. You agree to all of this and you’ll like it. And Thank you sir, may I have another?

As discussed here, applying the wisdom of a Dave Mason song, merely agreeing to be classified as an independent contractor doesn’t mean the worker is one. The determination of Independent Contractor vs. Employee is based on the facts, not what the parties agree. Remember: You can’t just agree to not to follow tax law, employment law, and employee benefit law. If the facts say the worker is an employee, then the worker is an employee — no matter what the agreement says.

So why even have an Independent Contractor Agreement?

Lots of reasons — if it’s customized to fit the facts of the relationship. Use the contract to highlight the facts that support independent contractor status. When drafting a meaningful Independent Contractor Agreement, consider the tests that might be applied to determine if the worker is really an employee or an independent contractor. These include Right to Control Tests, Economic Realities Tests, and ABC Tests, among others.

If the worker determines when and where to do the work, what days to do the work, whether to hire helpers, what equipment to use, etc., those are all facts that support independent contractor status. Put that in the agreement!

Or better yet, if you do not intend to exercise control over those decisions, don’t just write in the Agreement that the contractor gets to decide these things. Write that the business has no right to control these things. It’s a “Right to Control” Test you need to be concerned about. There is no “Exercise of Control” Test.

Independent Contractor Agreements can be helpful in memorializing a legitimate independent contractor relationship and can be valuable evidence in a hearing or trial if the worker’s status as an independent contractor is challenged. But they are helpful only if they are customized to fit the facts of the relationship.

Generic recitations of independent contractor status are of little value. They’re the Canadian pennies of the contract world. Make your Independent Contractor Agreement work for you.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 

Court Serves Up Reminder that Contractors Can Be Properly Classified and Misclassified – At The Same Time.

elephant-reminder pennsylvania court joint employment joint empoyer construction workplace misclassification act

A recurring theme in this blog has been that when trying to determine Who Is My Employee?, there are different tests under different laws. Different tests can yield different results.

A recent court decision from Pennsylvania emphasizes this point. In the Keystone State (proud home of Dunder Mifflin and Hershey Park), contruction workers are considered employees for workers compensation purposes unless they (i) have a written contract, (ii) have a place of business separate from their general contractor’s site, and (iii) have liability insurance of at least $50,000. This strict test is courtesy of the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (CWMA), an Act whose name shows a disappointing lack of creativity.

I might have gone with “Construction Occupation Workers’ Act Regarding Designations In Classifying Employees” (COWARDICE) or “Law About Misclassifying Employees” (LAME) or, if I was hungry for shellfish, then maybe “Construction Law About Misclassification for Builders And Keeping Employees Safe” (CLAMBAKES).

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, that whack-a-doodle misclassification test for construction workers. As my loyal readers know, that’s not even close to the tests used for determining Employee vs. Independent Contractor under most other laws. Other more common tests, like Right to Control Tests or Economic Realities Tests, rely on entirely different factors and weigh them, rather than requiring three specific factors to be met.

The court noted that the CWMA test was very different from the common law test and that the result under one test was not necessarily going to lead to the same result under the other test.

So remember, the task of deciding whether a worker is misclassified is hard and no fun. The task of writing names for laws, however, should be embraced with joy and creativity.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

Consultants Can Take Steps to Avoid Joint Employer Liability

Joint employer ;liability management companiy consultant IMG_1097Companies in distress sometimes retain management consultants to try to turn them around. Sometimes the plan works, sometimes not. When the turnaround effort fails and the company shuts down, can the management company be held liable as a joint employer?

This issue arose recently in a WARN Act case. The federal WARN Act requires an employer, before ordering a plant shutdown or mass layoff, to provide 60 days’ notice and pay to its employees.

Here’s what happened. A nursing home with multiple Medicare and Medicaid violations retained a consulting firm to try to solve its many problems. The consulting firm resolved most of the issues, but one sticky wicket remained, and the nursing home abruptly decided to shut down. The home did not provide the 60 days of notice required under the WARN Act, and its employees filed suit, seeking 60 days of pay.

Because the nursing home was bankrupt, however, the employee also sued the management company, arguing that it was a joint employer and therefore shared responsibility under the WARN Act to ensure that employees received 60 days’ notice and pay before the shutdown.

Can a management company be liable when its client orders a plant shutdown without providing sufficient WARN Act notice? In theory, yes. In this case, no.

The answer in this case turned on an analysis of five factors, which seek to determine whether two companies are either a single common employer or joint employers. Either conclusion would have made the management company jointly liable for the WARN Act violation.

The five factors that would suggest joint liability are:

  • common ownership
  • common directors and/or officers
  • de facto exercise of control
  • unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source
  • the dependency of operation

Other factors may be considered too, and the test is a balancing test. There is no set number of factors that must be satisfied. These factors are listed in the WARN Act regulations. Notably, these are different factors than those used in joint employment tests under various other statutes.

The court ruled that the management company was not jointly liable because (a) it was sufficiently distinct from the nursing home, and (b) it did not exercise enough control over the nursing home’s employees and policies. The court also noted that the management company did not “order” the closing of the nursing home and, under the language of the WARN Act, that was another factor weighing against joint liability.

The lesson here for management companies or consultants is to remember the potential for joint employment liability.

Tip: Management companies wishing to limit their exposure to joint employment claims should try to avoid exercising direct control over its clients’ employees and policies. Instead, make recommendations and have the client/employer adopt and implement those recommendations.

Contract language can also be used to protect the management company. A contract can clarify that the management company can only make recommendations relating to the client’s policies, practices, and employees; but ultimately, all decisions are to be made by the client/employer.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

Appeals Court Slams NLRB Joint Employer Finding in Landmark CNN Case, But Ruling May Prove Hollow

NLRB CNN joint employment Browning-Ferris overrule Second Circuit Court of Appeals IMG_1094A federal Court of Appeals has ruled that the NLRB cannot abruptly change its definition of joint employment without sufficient explanation. This decision (the CNN case) rebukes the NLRB for its initial attempt, in 2014, to expand the definition of joint employment.

This decision does not, however, address the Browning-Ferris case that followed in 2015, in which the Board similarly expanded the definition of joint employment but, that time, with an expansive explanation and justification for doing so. Browning-Ferris in on appeal too.

Here’s what happened.

Back in the good old days, when TV was pure and the world had not yet been exposed to Janet Jackson’s halftime nipple, CNN used to contract with an outside company who supplied technicians for its TV production. CNN’s camera operators, sound technicians, and broadcast engineers were employees of a third party, and they were represented by a union.

In late 2003, just a few months before that fateful Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, CNN decided to bring that work in house. It set up a hiring and interview process and then directly hired its own technicians, severing its ties with the third party.

That made the union mad.

The union claimed the decision was motivated by anti-union animus and filed an unfair labor practice charge. The NLRB ultimately agreed with the union, determined that CNN was a joint employer of the third party technicians, and therefore had to respect the union status of the technicians. CNN could not hit the reset button without bargaining.

There was more to the decision too, with findings of anti-union statements by supervisors and a question about whether CNN was a successor employer (which is not the same thing as being a joint employer), but for our purposes, let’s focus on the joint employment piece.

Before the Board’s CNN decision, the legal standard for joint employment under the NLRB (remember, different laws have different standards) required “direct and immediate control.” In the CNN decision, the Board inexplicably abandoned that standard and ruled that two separate entities are joint employers of a single workforce if they “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.”

“Share or codetermine” is much looser than “direct and immediate control.” Think of your teenage children. You may try to “share and codetermine” whether they have a party at your house when you are out of town on business, but you have no “direct and immediate control” over the matter. At least not while it happens. (Purely hypothetical. My kids didn’t do this. Kids, if you are reading, DON’T do this!)

This case has been crawling through the courts for years, but finally last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRB could not simply switch the test without explaining itself. On that basis alone, the Court rejected the conclusion that CNN was a joint employer of the third party technicians.

So what does this mean for Browning-Ferris and the vastly expanded definition of joint employment that the Board instituted in that case?  Unfortunately, nothing.

In contrast to the CNN case, the Board’s Browning-Ferris decision included a lengthy and expansive discussion of the joint employer standard and why the Board — like in Sympathy for the Devil, “saw it was a time for a change.”

The Browning-Ferris case is also on appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the same appellate court that just issued this decision) but will be heard by a different panel of three judges. A decision in that case is expected in the next several months.

For now, the Browning-Ferris standard — that indirect control is enough to demonstrate joint employment — remains the standard used by the NLRB.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

Joint Employment Legislation Needs to Be Expansive — If It’s to Be Effective

IMG_1093On Monday, we wrote about the Save Local Business Act — proposed legislation that, if passed, would create a new definition for joint employment under the NLRA and FLSA. But would that law go far enough?

No. Not at all.

On the bright side for businesses, the law would provide some predictability in that staffing agency workers would most likely be excluded from bargaining units. It would also remedy the current unfairness that results when a staffing agency makes payroll and overtime miscalculations but the company using the workers is held responsible as a joint employer.

But much more needs to be done to provide real clarity and predictability for business owners.

First, the law fails to address who is a joint employer under other federal employment laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Vast uncertainty in these areas would remain.

Second, the law does nothing to address the patchwork of standards under state and local laws. Businesses are subject to those laws too, and it’s fairly common that state and local standards for determining joint employment differ from state-to-state and law-to-law.

Businesses that operate in multiple locations would still be subject to different standards under different laws in different locations. The HR Policy Association has recommended that any legislation intended to clear up the messy patchwork of joint employment standards should include federal preemption or a safe harbor provision — something to ensure that businesses can rely on one set of rules to know whether they are a joint employer or not. That would make much more sense.

The newly proposed legislation has a long way to go. It might never even get to a vote. Let’s hope, however, that the introduction of this bill is just a first step, and that through the amendment process or through a Senate bill, its shortfalls will be addressed.

Business deserve the certainty that would come from a more comprehensive piece of legislation.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

Congress May Rewrite “Joint Employment” Definition

IMG_1092Congress may finally provide some clarity in determining who is a joint employer. In legislation introduced last week, the House proposed a bill that would rewrite the definition of “joint employer” under federal labor law (National Labor Relations Act) and federal wage and hour law (Fair Labor Standards Act).

The Save Local Business Act — despite lacking a fun-to-say acronym — would create a new standard for determining who is a joint employer under these two laws. The proposed new standard would allow a finding of joint employment “only if such person [business] directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a routine and limited manner, exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment….”

The definition provides examples of what are “essential terms and conditions,” including:

  • Hiring employees;
  • Discharging employees;
  • Determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits;
  • Day-to-day supervision of employees;
  • Assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks; and
  • Administering employee discipline.

No longer would a business be deemed a joint employer for exercising indirect or potential control, as permitted by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which is currently on appeal. (Read more about that here.)

The bill would also overrule a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that vastly expanded the scope of joint employment under the FLSA, but only for a handful of Mid-Atlantic states.  Read more on that dreadful decision here.)

As illustrated in this colorful map, the current standard for who is a joint employer varies by which law is being applied and by where you live. The bill, if passed, would provide much-needed clarity in the law — or, at least in some of the laws. The bill would not affect the FMLA, federal anti-discrimination law, or any state or local standards. (In other words, loyal reader, you’ll still need this blog. Ha!)

The bill was introduced by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), but already shares some bipartisan support, with co-sponsors including Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Luis Correa (D-Calif.).

Here’s the current bill.  It’s short, so don’t be afraid to click.

No one knows whether this proposed law will take effect or will even reach a vote (except perhaps Carnac the Magnificent!).  But we can expect significant support from the business community, which may create some momentum toward consiuderation and passage. The National Association of Home Builders has already issued a press release praising the proposed legislation.

If Congress wants to make a positive impact on businesses large and small, this bill could do it. So now let’s all sit back and watch how they screw it up.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

Map Shows Joint Employment Tests Are a Mess!

IMG_8284The tests for determining whether a business is a joint employer vary, depending on which law applies. That means there are different tests under federal labor law, wage and hour law, and employee benefits law, to name a few. There are also different tests under different states’ laws.

Further complicating the analysis, there are even different tests when applying the same law — depending on where you live.

Yes, you read that right. Even though the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal wage and hour law that applies across the country, federal courts in different states use different methods for determining whether a business is a joint employer under that single law.

Same for Title VII. Although this federal anti-discrimination law applies to businesses coast-to-coast, a business can be deemed a joint employer under Title VII on the West Coast and not on the East Coast. Or vice versa. Or yes in Virginia, but no in Pennsylvania. Huh?

We’ve discussed this complication in other posts — such as here and here — but not in graphic form.  Thanks to Richard Heiser, who is in the Legal Department at FedEx Ground, we now have this beauty!

(Heiser testified recently before a Congressional committee on the need for legislation to clear up the confusion.)

The map shows that, depending on where in the U.S. you live, the test for determining whether you are a joint employer varies under the FLSA (color) and under Title VII (pattern).

The map illustrates quite nicely how difficult it is for multi-state employers to determine whether they have responsibilities as a joint employer or not. Editor’s Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale. All U.S. maps are required to say that under federal law. Or not, depending on where you live.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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