Right-to-Know Regulations May Move Back to the Forefront; Time to Check If You Have Misclassified Your Workers!

28 January 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Recent activity by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) suggests that it may make moves to push forward changes to the recordkeeping requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations that were first proposed in fall 2010. These changes would bring to the forefront issues related to misclassification of workers as independent contractors when they are actually employees, potentially spurring an increase in costly wage and hour litigation. On January 11, 2013, the DOL requested comments on a public survey designed to look at worker classification and gain a better understanding of workers’ knowledge of employment laws and the rules regarding classification of workers as employees or independent contractors. This is the first time such a DOL survey would examine issues related to worker classification.

The purpose for this survey may very well be connected to the proposed recordkeeping rule referenced above. In fall 2010, the DOL proposed a change to the regulations regarding recordkeeping designed to “enhance the transparency and disclosure to workers of their status as the employer’s employee or some other status, such as an independent contractor… .” In essence, if adopted, the change would require employers to inform workers of whether they are employees, independent contractors, or some other status. The law does not currently require employers to do this.

During President Obama’s first term, the DOL did not press forward with the proposed new rule because of concerns raised regarding the burden and cost this new rule would place on employers. It appears, however, that the DOL may press forward on the new rule during President Obama’s second term.

Improper classification of workers as independent contractors can be a huge loss of revenue for the government. Hence, the DOL has directed a laser-like focus on worker misclassification issues in the past few years, and this latest action by the DOL may be another example of such focus. In light of these developing issues, employers would be well served to take a close look at how they classify workers to make sure they are doing so correctly (and our authors have previously reported on employee versus independent contractor issues and proper employee classification. Given the DOL’s apparent renewed and invigorated focus, now is an excellent time to take a closer look at how you classify your own workers.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ