Employee vs. Independent Contractor
A fierce fight is unfolding in employment law. A fight that goes to a key threshold issue: Is a worker an employee of an employer or an independent…
March 06, 2020 at 12:32 PM
5 minute read
A fierce fight is unfolding in employment law. A fight that goes to a key threshold issue: Is a worker an employee of an employer or an independent contractor in the worker's own business?
The stakes could not be higher. If an independent contractor, then the worker is not covered by well over a half century of remedial legislation: the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act from the 1930s; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act from the 1960s; and the Employee Retirement Security Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act from the 1970s. In short, good luck independent contractor, you are on your own. And once upon a time that was fine because the demarcation between employee and independent contractor was bright and well defined.
For instance, say an independent contractor had her own business, a business in which she would remodel the kitchen of a home or one in which she would build a tool shed for a factory. The one doing the hiring set out the objectives (" I want a kitchen that looks just like this photo") and the contractor decided upon the means to make the wish into a reality. Everyone gained and was satisfied.
But then enter stage right: the Gig Economy. The service industry mushroomed, new business models sprung up (Uber and Grubhub to name two) and old law adapted to new circumstances. Corporate America realized that it could rid themselves of pesky employees by making employees into independent contractors by permitting the worker to control the details of a job. Look at Lawson v. Grubhub Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1071 ( N.D. Calif. 2018) In Grubhub ( a restaurant delivery service), the delivery drivers decide on how ( car, bike, scooter) delivery is made, their appearance when making it , and their schedule if they decide to work. Thus, no overtime need be paid. Or examine FedEx Home Delivery v NLRB, 563 F. 3d 492 ( D.C. Cir. 2009 ) where, in a 2-1 vote, the appeals court held that a worker was an independent contractor because they furnished their own vehicle, which had to be decked out in FedEx logos and colors (as did the driver uniforms), the workers still worked when they wanted as long as all your assigned packages were delivered on time. But this case added a kicker, namely "entrepreneurial opportunity" for gain or loss. Yes, you too, can be a business owner and buy and sell your assigned route and hire your own employees to service the route. And as independent contractors, the NLRA is inapplicable and a union cannot be formed. Oh, and best yet, the worker need not take advantage of these opportunities; it is sufficient for independent contractor status if the opportunities are available even though never accessed — as turned out to be the case. Entrepreneurs in potential only. A far cry from the days of Joan's Kitchen Remodeling.
But here is how far the concept of an independent contractor has really come and its true threat to workers. Grubhub exists solely to deliver food and FedEx Ground to deliver packages. But the very purpose for their existence is performed solely by independent contractors, not by employees. These workers are integral to the very existence of these entities and come in not to perform a skilled job and a discrete task and leave ( Joan's Kitchen Remodeling) but rather to come in and perform a fungible job and a repetitive task and stay.
On January 1, 2020, though a counter-punch landed on this emerging trend when AB-5 became law in California. Patterned after similar laws in Massachusetts and New Jersey, the law adopted the "ABC" test in which a worker is presumed to be an employee and is only deemed an independent contractor if (a) the entity urging contractor status establishes that (a) the worker is free of control from the hiring entity; (b) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (c) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or occupation as that involved in the work performed. Just like the good old days before the Gig economy. And guess what? The Fifth Circuit on January 10, 2020, in Hobbs et al v. Petroplex Pipe and Construction announced it would now consider whether a worker is an integral part of the hiring entity's business; if the answer is "yes," the worker, according to the court, is more likely an employee.
Of course there is lots of money at stake. Big money. In November 2019, the state of New Jersey sent a tax bill to Uber of $649,000,000 for back taxes owed for workers who should have been treated as employees but were not. ( Somehow, I do not think a payment plan is possible.)
Employment law is a never-ending struggle between the power of Capital and Labor with the Public Good hovering nearby and taking sides only when appropriate. There are no winners in the fight, only combatants. And, when you think about, this is exactly as it should be.
Michael P. Maslanka is an assistant professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law. His e-mail is [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute read'Courts Do Get It Wrong': Legal Experts Discuss State-Law Certification Pros and Cons
9 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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