Recent Case Reminds Companies That, Though Much Embattled, Independent Contractor Classifications Can Be Valid

29 September 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

The dividing line between employees and independent contractors has been a hot topic in employment law for several years. In addition to the interest the federal government has taken in possible misclassification of employees, employers can also be subject to civil suits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and/or state employment law. In fact, litigation related to the FLSA has increased dramatically in the last few years. However, a New York federal court recently threw out a class action claim under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), giving some indication that while independent contractor challenges are notoriously difficult for employers to prevail upon, when a business is careful to observe the formalities and necessities of the independent contractor relationship, court still recognize its validity.

The case involved over 200 individual drivers who worked for a group of transportation companies. The drivers alleged that they were actually employees, and that the defendant transportation companies had improperly classified them as independent contractors. The drivers brought claims under both the FLSA and the NYLL, seeking significant amounts for unpaid overtime and other wage claims. The court reviewed both the FLSA test and the New York test for independent contractors.

In the case, the drivers had agreed to a franchise agreement with transportation companies. Through that franchise agreement, they were then able to access the collective dispatch system operated by the transit companies to take jobs. However, the drivers were not required to work a certain number of hours or days, take a certain number of jobs, be in a certain location, or even to work exclusively for the transportation companies. They were allowed to work for competitors and accept jobs from their private clients. The drivers also drove their own cars, and maintained the cars themselves. The drivers were subject to certain rules, including for example, a dress code. However, the rules were created and enforced by a committee of other drivers, rather than the transportation companies.

In reviewing the claim under the FLSA, the court looked at the complete factual picture and the economic realities of the arrangements to determine whether the drivers were employees of the transportation companies. It determined that given all of the facts, including the flexibility the drivers had to take or decline jobs, and the lack of any competitive restrictions, the drivers were actually in business for themselves, rather than working for the transportation companies. Therefore, the court dismissed all of the FLSA claims.

The court then had to take a slightly different approach to the drivers’ NYLL claims because that law has a slightly different focus to determine if a person should be deemed an independent contractor. It focuses on the degree of control the employer asserts over an individual. Looking at the same facts described above, the court also found that the employer exercised only a limited amount of control over the drivers, which indicated that they had been properly classified as independent contractors. The court then also dismissed the NYLL claims.

This recent decision illustrates how important the facts of a given employment situation are when determining whether people can be considered employees or independent contractors. If you engage independent contractors to carry out the work of your business, it is critical to evaluate not only your workplace policies and procedures, but also the specific facts relating to the degree of control and those contractors have when determining whether an independent contractor or employee designation is appropriate. However, in light of the scrutiny on independent contractor classifications and the challenges they present to employers, it is always a good idea to consult with experienced counsel before embarking on an independent contractor relationship.

 

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