Independent Contractor Update
In their Labor Relations column, John P. Furfaro and Risa M. Salins review the requirements of the New York Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act and other developments regarding independent contractors over the course of the last year, including the National Labor Relations Board's new test for independent contractor misclassification, and notable rulings by New Jersey and California courts.
April 02, 2015 at 10:00 PM
10 minute read
Employer reliance on independent contractors has continued to attract the time and attention of courts, regulators and litigants. Notably, the New York Joint Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification recently issued its Annual Report stating that the New York Department of Labor found 133,000 workers were misclassified as independent contractors in 2014. See NYS Dep't of Labor, Annual Report of the Joint Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification (Feb. 1, 2015).
As this month also marks the one-year anniversary of the New York Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act, we thought it would be a good time to review the requirements of that law. The column also discusses other developments regarding independent contractors over the course of the last year, including the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) new test for independent contractor misclassification, and notable rulings by New Jersey and California courts.
Delivery Drivers
In the fall of 2014, the NLRB revisited its standard for classifying workers as independent contractors not protected under the NLRA in FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB No 55 (2014). In this 3-1 decision (member Philip Miscimarra recused himself), the board held a group of FedEx home delivery drivers classified as independent contractors were covered employees.
FedEx refused to recognize or bargain with the Teamsters local union claiming to represent a group of Connecticut drivers, contending the drivers were independent contractors. In finding the workers were employees, the board stated its decision was guided by the non-exhaustive list of common law factors acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court and outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Agency §220 (1958), with no one factor being determinative. These include, among others, extent of control by the employer; whether the employer supplies the instrumentalities, tools and the place of work; length of employment; and whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rippling Effect' of Pay-Transparency Laws to Test Legal Departments
Black Former In-House Lawyer Sues NYC Nonprofit, Alleging Pattern of Pay Inequities
NY Judge Rules on Former In-House Attorney's Claims Against Goldman Sachs
Con Edison Denies Former In-House Attorney's Gender, Age Discrimination Claims
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250