DOL Proposing to Make it Easier to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors

24 September 2020 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman Michael (Mike) R. Rahmn

Ensuring the proper classification of workers is a concern for many employers. Soon, it may become easier for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, thereby excluding more workers from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Independent contractors also are not entitled to a minimum wage, family and medical leave, and, under many state laws, unemployment insurance. This issue has become more significant, based on the “gig” economy.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed new regulations that make it easier for employers to classify workers as independent contractors. The DOL’s notice provides historical context as to prior rulings and regulations on the determination of a worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor. The DOL notes that technological and social changes have revealed how the DOL and court’s emphasis on investment and permanence have created misleading results. To remedy these issues, the DOL proposed a new addition to Title 29 of Code of Federal Regulations (Section 795), to explain the economic realities of a worker’s status, and specifically rejected the California ABC test following Supreme Court precedent as holding that the economic realities test is the proper standard. Tony &. Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 301 (1984).

The DOL’s proposed rule:

  • Adopts an “economic reality” test to determine a worker’s status as an employee or an independent contractor. The test considers five factors as to whether a worker is in
    business for her/himself (independent contractor) or is instead economically dependent on a putative employer for work (employee);

  • As part of those five factors, the DOL identifies and explains two “core factors,” specifically: (i) the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work and (ii) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. These core factors are given greater weight in determining if a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business or, as a matter of economic reality, is in business for themselves;

  • Identifies three other factors that may serve as additional guideposts in the analysis of economic dependence, including: (i) the amount of skill required for the work, (ii) the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer, and (iii) whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production; and

  • Advises that the actual practice is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

Regarding the “core factors,” the proposed regulations state that an individual who is able to set his/her own schedule, select projects, and work for others, including potential competitors, exercises the type of control over his/her work that would weigh in favor of contractor status. Additionally, if the worker has the opportunity to use his/her own initiative or managerial skill to increase profits or losses (including whether to engage helpers or purchase materials, etc.), it weighs in favor of contractor status.

The DOL is seeking public comment for 30 days on this proposal. If the DOL’s proposal is finalized, which is expected, employers will have additional clarity for classifying workers as independent contractors, and the risk of misclassification by an employer of its workers should be reduced.

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