Employee/Independent Contractor Status

The issue of whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees is a common dispute in the gig economy, particularly in newer, technology-based industries, such as ride-sharing. That issue just became a much simpler one in Florida.
Continue Reading Florida Legislation Establishes That Ride-Sharing Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees

Across the country, worker misclassification issues continue to be a significant risk for employers. One hot button issue is whether workers in newer, technology-based industries, such as ride-sharing, are properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Last week, an appellate court in Florida considered whether Uber drivers are properly classified as independent contractors or employees for purposes of benefits under Florida’s unemployment insurance statute.
Continue Reading Florida Court Finds Uber Drivers are Independent Contractors, Not Employees

On January 20, 2016, the administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), David Weil, issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” (AI) regarding the agency’s interpretation of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA).
Continue Reading DOL Says Joint Employment Under FLSA and MSPA Should Be “As Broad As Possible”

On July 15, 2015, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidance which it claims is designed to reduce the misclassification of employees as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Continue Reading DOL Issues Guidance Claiming Most Workers Are Employees – Not Independent Contractors – Under the FLSA

A recent decision from the California Labor Commissioner’s Office found that a former Uber driver was an employee of the company, not an independent contractor as the firm has labeled its motorists.
Continue Reading California Finds Uber Drivers are Employees, Not Independent Contractors – Ruling Could Shake Up Mobile App-Based Business Model

In Euchner-USA, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. 13-2021-cv, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10797 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an insurer must defend its insured in a case alleging ERISA violations because the facts alleged (as opposed to the embedded legal

On December 6, 2012, New Jersey Assembly Bill 3581 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Budget Committee.  The Bill would amend New Jersey’s current statute concerning enforcement, penalties and procedures for law regarding failure to pay wages and provide for enhanced penalties, among other things.  The Bill is part of the Assembly’s recent push to promote job creation and economic development through a series of legislative initiatives.


Continue Reading New Jersey Introduces Bill Enhancing Penalties For Failure To Pay Wages

In an update to a recent article posted in July, the California Supreme Court agreed on October 10 to hear Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, a sexual harassment case in which the court will decide whether a franchisor can be held liable for the acts of an employee of one of its franchisees.  The

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to a franchisor and held that the terms of the franchise agreement did not necessarily govern whether the franchisor could be held strictly liable for the actions of an employee of the franchisee. 


Continue Reading California Appeals Court Holds That Franchisor May Be Liable For Harassment By Employee Of Franchisee

On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 459, legislation that creates new and significant civil penalties for employers that misclassify employees as independent contractors. The newly enacted Section 226.8 of the California Labor Code authorizes civil penalties under two circumstances: (1) “Willful misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor;” and (2) “Charging an individual who has been willfully misclassified as an independent contractor a fee, or making any deductions from compensation, for any purpose . . . .” In either case, the “person or employer” responsible for the violation “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law.” Moreover, if there is a determination that a person or employer has engaged in “a pattern or practice” of violations, “the person or employer shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation.”


Continue Reading New Legislation Magnifies The Consequences Of Misclassification Of Independent Contractors In California