Blackwater May Mean Deepwater: Independent Contractor Controversy Erupts

We all know Blackwater as the company that has been given one billion dollars in federal contracts to do work in Iraq.  There have already been numerous allegations concerning the activities of Blackwater agents and their tactics.  Now, it appears that this company may have, on a widespread scale, been violating labor law by classifying individuals as independent contractors when they should have been deemed employees.

Blackwater classified its security guards as independent contractors.  As they were not deemed employees by the company, the company was able to qualify for small business contracts without competing with other qualified bidders.  This is the essence of the allegation made by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif).  The company claimed that it did not sufficiently control the activities of the guards in Iraq and Afghanistan for them to be labeled employees.  Not only does this contradict what a Blackwater lawyer had argued in a wrongful death case, when he was seeking money damages for their estates, it also strikes me as a position without foundation.

In order to establish the element of "control," which then shows someone is an employee, it is not necessary for the putative employer to control every aspect of the individual's work day.  It is enough if a general umbrella of control, actual or potential, exists over the employee(s).  It appears to me, based on the little that is now public, that Blackwater did exercise sufficient general control over these people and its claim that "all" that it did was to pay them seems bland.

At stake are millions of dollars in taxes to the IRS and probably millions of dollars in overtime monies to the employees.  It is very tough to establish a true independent contractor relationship and the framework of these relationships seems to be the antithesis of such a relationship.

.

Fed Ex Drivers Look At The Map and Find Their Way To A Class Action

Federal Express is facing a looming legal battle over whether it can classify its drivers as independent contractors or as employees, as the company’s Ground Package division faces a nationwide class action suit by truck drivers, who are suing under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for allegedly misclassifying the employees as contractors.

The drivers are seeking benefits under several plans for which they were not eligible, because they were designated as independent contractors when hired by Federal Express. The class of plaintiffs includes more than 20,000 current and former drivers, who had signed operating contracts declaring them to be contractors. The lawsuit claims that FedEx had control over the workers as employees, which would not allow them to be designated as independent contractors. If the drivers are deemed to be employees, they would be eligible for a variety of rights and benefits, including: overtime compensation, retirement benefits, and health insurance. Indeed, a finding of employee status for these drivers would be dramatically expensive for FedEx.

Federal Express also faces a separate legal battle with its California-based drivers. Following a California appellate court decision, which determined that FedEx single-route drivers were in fact, employees, FedEx has elected not to renew driver single-route contracts, and would only work with multiple-route contractors. Not surprisingly, the drivers have now alleged retaliation. FedEx has offered its single-route drivers various incentives to either take up more routes or to sell their routes. This case is significant because at least 75% of FedEx’s 12,000 drivers are single-route contractors; therefore, any rulings could have adverse affects on FedEx, and the industry as a whole.

Class actions suits involving drivers are becoming a rapidly growing area of litigation, as there are currently 35 pending rulings on class certification for drivers under both state and federal laws, as more and more drivers are challenging their employment classification status. It is incumbent upon companies in all industries to make sure that they understand when an individual is an employee and those (often limited) circumstances when individuals are “really” independent contractors. This FedEx litigation highlights the problems and the potential exposures for misclassification of employees as “independent contractors.”

Independent Contractors: Lack of Control and Business Ownership Are The Keys

The line between who is an employee and who is an independent contractor is often a difficult one to draw, with significant (adverse) consequences for employers if they err in their designation. Different state and federal agencies have different standards for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. Under any statutory scheme, however, there are two crucial areas. The first focus is control. The second is a determination on whether or not the contractor has his own business.

Independence. To qualify as an employee, an employer must exercise control over the person. Control means dictating the means and methods by which work is done, as opposed to just requiring a particular result. If an electrician comes into a house to install a fixture, the home owner does not tell the electrician to use particular tools, but rather just wants the fixture properly installed (i.e. the result). The electrician himself chooses how he will do the job and at the end of it he gives the home owner a bill to pay. An employee, however, is given direction as to how to accomplish the task. That shows control. More evidence of control is the manner of payment. If the person is paid by the hour or on a salary, as opposed to a lump sum for the project, that evidences that the putative employer is not paying for just a result, but is controlling the means by which the result is obtained. If the company supplies health insurance, paid vacation hours, or personal days to someone claimed to be an “independent contractor,” that is almost a dead giveaway to an agency (e.g. Department of Labor) that the person is in reality an employee.

Business ownership. The next crucial focus is whether the contractor has his own business. This may be established in a number of ways, such as the possession of business cards, advertising in the Yellow Pages or elsewhere, the filing of a Schedule C, self-employment tax return, or proof of incorporation and conducting the business like a corporation. The burden of proof is on the employer who wants to prove that is contractor is not its employee and it may prove difficult securing, for example, someone’s tax return so it can be turned over to the governmental agency conducting the audit or investigation. One good, impressive method for showing a true, independent business is for the company to make out the checks to the other “corporation” and not to the person, as an individual.

Another issue is the exclusivity of the arrangement. If a person is working solely or virtually solely for one company and derives the vast percentage of his income/compensation from that one company, that evidences an employer-employee relationship. To the contrary, independent contractors may work for dozens, if not hundreds of companies in a given year.

Exposure. An audit by a state Department of Labor typically occurs when an individual applies for unemployment compensation. As there have been no unemployment contributions made for the independent contractor (or others similar to him), this may often trigger a complete audit of all employees and can end in huge fines for a company and payment of unemployment contributions in arrears. If the contractor has worked more than forty hours, there may be exposure for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or state wage-hour laws. Obviously, the specter of an IRS audit, and demand for FICA and social security taxes for the employee(s), also looms on the horizon.

The Answer? A well-drafted independent contractor agreement may help. A carefully drafted document will contain all the provisions that demonstrate, on paper, that an individual is an independent contractor not an employee. Even the best drafted document, however, will not help if the actual circumstances vary from what is on the paper. As most audits go awry for the employer on the independent business part of the test, the employer must be constantly on guard to ensure that its contractors have evidence that establishes the fact that they truly have a “business.” If not, it is the employer who may well get “the business” from governmental agencies in unanticipated audits.