Divided Labor Board Adopts Business-Friendly Independent Contractor Test
The National Labor Relations Board said it "clarified the role entrepreneurial opportunity plays in its determination of independent-contractor status."
January 25, 2019 at 05:26 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board on Friday adopted a new standard for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee, embracing a business-friendly approach that could make it easier for companies to avoid some union disputes.
The ruling in the case SuperShuttle DFW Inc. could present broader implications for the gig economy and other industries that rely on contractors and delivery drivers. Much of the gig economy is built on the backs of contractors, who can enjoy greater flexibility than traditional employees. But independent contractors, unlike employees, cannot join a union, and they don't share many of the workplace benefits that employees do.
Trump-appointed NLRB Chairman John Ring, voting with fellow Republican members William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan, overturned an Obama-era decision from 2014 involving FedEx delivery drivers who wanted to form a union. Democratic member Lauren McFerran dissented in Friday's decision.
The board's ruling involved shuttle van drivers at Dallas Fort Worth airport who wanted to be considered employees. SuperShuttle DFW before 2005 had considered its drivers to be employees. But the company subsequently switched to a franchise model that still exists today. The franchises operated as independent businesses.
The divided board rejected a push by the drivers arguing they were employees and not contractors. The board said leasing or ownership of work vans, method of compensation and control over their daily work schedules and working conditions provided the franchisees with “significant entrepreneurial opportunity for economic gain.” The new standard clarified the role “entrepreneurial opportunity” plays in determining worker status.
Writing in her dissent, McFerran said: “SuperShuttle's drivers are not independent in any meaningful way, and they have little meaningful 'entrepreneurial opportunity.' Under well-established Board law—reflected in decisions leading up to and including FedEx—this should be a straightforward case.”
In an amicus brief in an earlier federal appeals court, the U.S. Chamber along with other business groups urged the court to overturn the Obama board's decision on the independent contractor standard.
“Independent contractor relationships are voluntary arrangements mutually beneficial to individuals and companies in the trucking industry and other sectors of the economy,” lawyers from Jones Day wrote in the chamber's brief. “Where, as here, an independent contractor has substantial entrepreneurial opportunities, not to mention substantial control over whether and with whom to work, both the board and the courts should be exceedingly cautious before disregarding the parties' decision to structure the relationship as an independent contractor arrangement.”
Disputes over whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee have posed central questions in cases involving companies such as Uber and Lyft. A California Supreme Court ruling last year made it harder for companies to justify classifying their workers as contractors. That ruling has created added uncertainty for companies, and courts are confronting whether the decision should be applied retroactively.
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
© 2025 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 AllWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 minute readReport: US Attorney E. Martin Estrada to Resign From California's Central District
3 minute readAfter Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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