I have often said that the USDOL is a politically charged industry and its view on legal issues (much like the National Labor Relations Board) shifts with the Administration that is in power. For example, under the prior administration, the agency took a pro-business stance and issued pro-business Opinion Letters on independent contractor and working
I have often lamented how easy it seems for plaintiffs to secure conditional certification in a FLSA collective action. A few Affidavits, often identical in content, are produced and then, voila, the plaintiff gets conditional certification which then inordinately complicates matters for the employer and makes litigating the case and, of equal import, settling
If recent history teaches anything, it is that no industry is immune from attacks on employers who allegedly misclassify workers as independent contractors. In an offbeat case, this has occurred to a company that utilized medical interpreters. The case is entitled In Re: Ingrid L. Vega, d/b/a Professional Interpreters of Erie v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In an off-beat case that revolved around the IRS twenty-factor test for independent contractor, an appellate court in Missouri has affirmed the state Labor Commission ruling that caretakers working for a pet sitting company were statutory employees, rather than independent contractors. The case is entitled 417 Pet Sitting LLC v. Division of Employment Security,
The Trump Administration has tried to help business and employers in many ways, including loosening USDOL rules (and views) over many things. One topic of special interest on this front has been on the independent contractor issue. The USDOL has taken another step now in that direction, by proposing a new rule on the classification
When people are employees, the deductions that may be made from their wages are limited and many items that would be classified as employer business expenses cannot be deducted from worker pay. When individuals are independent contractors, these otherwise forbidden deductions may be effected because of this supposed non-employee status. When those two worlds collide,
The State of New Jersey (and many other states) has started to tighten up laws regarding independent contractor status. One troubling component (to management-side practitioners and employers alike) of this New Jersey initiative is to compel employers to post a notice that explains elements of independent contractor law and, essentially, invites workers to file suits
The significance of the issue of independent contractor cannot be underestimated these days and this battle is being waged on any number of fronts, including when an entity may or may not enter a litigation as an intervener. In a recent case, a New Jersey real estate trade association has been denied to enter an
I have blogged numerous times about the strictness of the New Jersey A-B-C test as applied to possible independent contractors. The prime example of this is the very recent assessment of Uber for $650,000,000 in back-due unemployment contributions. This incredibly large assessment, certain to be litigated about for years, is a sign to employers, large,
The New Jersey independent contractor test is one of the toughest for a putative employer to prevail upon. So, when an employer does do that, it is a great day for the employer community and that is what has happened in the case of a law firm who fought the UI claim of its paralegal,