Gig Companies' Lawyers 'Welcome' New US Labor Opinion Letter
"This new opinion letter gives a fair amount of freedom on how to engage workers outside of the normal employee models," one Big Law labor and employment lawyer says.
April 29, 2019 at 06:48 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Department of Labor issued a business-friendly opinion Monday for the gig economy industry, telling one unidentified “virtual marketplace” employer that its workers are properly classified as independent contractors, not employees.
In a 10-page opinion letter dated April 29, Keith Sonderling, the acting administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division, tells the representative of an unnamed online platform that based on a six-factor test, “we conclude that your client's service providers are independent contractors, not employees of your client.”
“The facts in your letter demonstrate economic independence, rather than economic dependence, in the working relationship between your client and its service providers,” Sonderling wrote.
The letter, as is customary, does not name the company that sought the opinion. But its findings are a potential big-dollar boon to the employer—and those similarly situated in the on-demand economy. Independent contractors, unlike employees, are often not entitled to minimum wage, overtime and other benefits.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Michael Puma in Philadelphia said the letter continues a trend at the Labor Department where regulators are giving more flexibility to companies in defining “nontraditional relationships” with workers.
“The previous guidance from 2015 under the Obama administration was advocating for a more narrow view on what was considered an independent contractor and advocating that most workers were employees,” Puma said in an email. “Now, this new opinion letter gives a fair amount of freedom on how to engage workers outside of the normal employee models. While it's not a binding regulation, the guidance could be persuasive to courts.”
The Labor Department's opinion was released as the debate over worker classification has reached a critical moment. As Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. move toward IPOs this year, companies in the so-called sharing economy are seeking regulatory assurance that they can continue to rely on a non-employee workforce.
In a March 1 S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Lyft listed potential legal proceedings that classify “a driver of a ridesharing platform as an employee” as a risk to its business. Both Lyft and Uber face misclassification suits from drivers and other contract workers.
California lawmakers are also considering legislation that would codify the California Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which created a much more expansive test of what constitutes an employee. The bill's author, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, has shown little inclination to create carve-outs for the ride-sharing industry.
A Fisher & Phillips analysis posted Monday afternoon by partner Richard Meneghello in Portland, Oregon, said the opinion letter is no “magic bullet” but still marked a “welcome” development for employers “and a preview as to how today's USDOL will treat misclassification concerns that fall into their laps from gig economy (and other) businesses.”
“The next step is for the agency to take formal action with respect to investigatory decisions based on this same reasoning, or possibly issue guidance or formal regulations along these same lines,” Meneghello wrote. “We can also hope that a court will look to this letter and adopt these same principles in an active piece of misclassification litigation.”
The Labor Department's opinion is posted below:
Read more:
Finding a Third Path in Bridging the Employee/Contractor Divide
Divided Labor Board Adopts Business-Friendly Independent Contractor Test
Employers Face Open Questions After Landmark 'Dynamex' Labor Ruling
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 AllInvoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
4 minute readCalifornia's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
4 minute readWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 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