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
© 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 AllCommentary: President Biden Should Commute Death Sentences of All Federal Inmates
6 minute readMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Aging Condo Neglect Leads to $1M Payout in Miami Beach Slip and Fall
- 2‘BiT Global Lost’: Federal Judge Won’t Stop Coinbase From Delisting wBTC Token
- 3Some Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
- 4Judge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
- 5EPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump
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