Orchestra Left Without A Chair When The Music Stops: Another Independent Contractor Misclassification

25 April 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

How independent are musicians who play and perform with others? Do they have more artistic control on their own, or do they only become truly great artists in collaboration with others when their independent talents combine to make incredible music? We suspect David Lee Roth, Sammy Hagar, Richie Sambora, and others who have “gone solo” and played in multiple groups might have interesting opinions on this issue.

However, if you sit up straight as soon as the conductor raises his baton, does that automatically make you an employee? According to the courts and the government, the answer appears to be yes. Beyond musicians, these recent developments can be tied more broadly to the ongoing scrutiny with “employee” versus “independent contractor” classifications.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that orchestra musicians are actual employees and not independent contractors, making them free to unionize. The recent decision denied a petition from the Lancaster Symphony Orchestra which challenged the National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB’s) finding that the musicians were employees of the orchestra in large part because of the control the Orchestra wielded over them. In the underlying decision, the NLRB emphasized the Orchestra’s control over the musicians’ performance, and the appellate court echoed this point by describing the conductor as having “virtually dictatorial authority” over the musicians.

In rendering its decision, the Court reviewed a 10 factor test to evaluate whether the musicians were independent contractors or employees. In focusing on the “control” factor, the Court noted that the orchestra forbids the musicians from doing such things as crossing their legs and requires them to remain “attentive” through a performance. The musicians may not talk during tuning, and one musician reported being reprimanded when she left her seat to talk to another colleague. To be fair, the Court did note that some of the factors leaned in favor of finding the musicians to be independent contractors. However, at the end of the performance, the Court noted the “conflicting evidence” required it to defer to the board and uphold the board’s finding that the musicians were employees.

While one might say that orchestra musicians are unique, and this case could “never apply to me,” think again. The recent decision is yet another example of governmental agencies closely scrutinizing an employer’s classification of its workers as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The NLRB, the U.S. Department of Labor and various agencies of state government are all turning up the heat on employers in all industries who use independent contractors because many employers continue to wrongly believe that simply because a worker is part time or only retained on a temporary basis, he or she can be properly classified as an independent contractor on that factor alone. But courts and government agencies look at a multitude of factors, and in this case control of the performer weighed heavily in finding that the musicians were in fact employees. Employers need to tune up and tune in to what is going on in order to avoid the possibility of significant legal risk.

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