For years, we have been reporting on independent contractor (IC) misclassification cases, especially class action and collective action lawsuits. While the media in recent years has paid more attention to the impact of these types of claims on companies in the so-called gig economy, the majority of these cases continue to target companies in traditional industries, such as transportation, healthcare, consumer sales, financial services, utilities, and real estate. This blog post includes an update below of new lawsuits filed and court cases that have settled in the past two months involving businesses related to insurance, energy, geologic services, outdoor recreation, audio/video services – industries that have little to do with the gig economy. But regardless of whether the industry is in tech, involves a platform, or operates on a brick-and-mortar basis, savvy companies wishing to minimize their IC misclassification exposure have taken steps or undertaken a process to structure, document, and implement their IC relationships in a manner intended to maximize compliance with applicable laws. One such process is IC Diagnostics®, which can provide a customized and sustainable approach to reducing the likelihood of individual, class action and collective action lawsuits alleging IC misclassification.

In the Courts (6 cases)

Insurance Company Settles IC Misclassification Lawsuit with Sales Representative. An insurance call-center business has reached a settlement with a sales representative in a proposed collective action alleging overtime compensation violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint, filed in a Florida federal court, alleged that the insurance company and its president scheduled the sales representatives’ hours; required them to adhere to a strict work schedule; directed that they follow sales scripts; controlled and supervised the way they performed their work; provided them with all materials needed to perform the work; and required them to undergo training. Frater v. American Work Health and Life Inc., No. 0:26-cv-60398 (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2026).  

Energy Services Company Settles FLSA Collective Action with Service and Operations Technicians. An energy services company in Georgia agreed to settle a proposed FLSA collective action with a technician in a lawsuit alleging that the company violated federal law requiring overtime compensation for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek due to the company’s alleged misclassification of technicians as ICs and not employees. The company provides flowback and production startup support for oil and gas operations as well as hands-on support designed to maintain well-site safety and efficiency. The technician who filed the lawsuit and sought to represent himself and other similarly situated technicians performed services including installation, maintenance, and repairs on power generation and energy systems. According to the collective action complaint, the company allegedly determined the technicians’ hours, schedule and work locations; provided required uniforms, tools, and equipment; supplied the technicians with company badges and vehicles; mandated that they comply with company policies and procedures; required attendance at meetings and training sessions; unilaterally set the technicians’ rates of pay; controlled the distribution of work assignments; subjected the technicians to discipline; and prohibited them from working for company competitors. Almardini v. NexGen Energy Services LLC, No. 1:26-cv-01250 (N.D. Ga. June 22, 2026).

Geologic Services Company Sued for IC Misclassification by Well-Site “Mudlogger.” A geologic services company has been sued in a Colorado federal court by a plaintiff geologist, who performed mudlogging services, alleging that the company violated the overtime compensation provisions of the FLSA due to its alleged misclassification of the plaintiff and other similarly situated geologists as ICs and not employees. The company provides a wide array of oil and gas wellsite analytics including mudlogging, wellsite geology, mass spectrometry, geosteering, and advanced lab-based services. According to the collective action complaint, the company allegedly paid the workers a single day rate for all hours worked in a day (without any overtime premium compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek), even though the workers were typically scheduled for at least 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, often for several weeks without time off. The plaintiff alleged that the company exercised control over all aspects of geologists’ work and set their hours, rate of pay, and locations of the work. He also claims that the company provided all of the tools, machines and supplies needed for the work. It is anticipated that the company will file a motion to compel arbitration if its IC agreement with the mudloggers includes an arbitration clause with a class and collective action waiver. Clark v. Epoch Geoservices LLC, No. 1:26-cv-03372 (D. Colo. July 24, 2026).

Golf Club to Pay Caddies to Settle IC Misclassification Class Action. A private golf club in New York has agreed to settle an IC misclassification lawsuit with over 100 caddies to resolve state wage and hour and FLSA overtime wage claims. The lawsuit was filed as a proposed class and collective action by four caddies that provided services at the defendant country club. The complaint alleged that the proposed class of caddies did not receive any compensation from the club, only bag fees ($60 per bag) and tips that golfers chose to pay the caddies directly. It also alleged that the caddies were subject to direction and control by caddy masters, who allegedly paired them with golfers; supervised, interviewed, hired, disciplined and fired them; and set their schedules. Additionally, the caddies claimed that they were required to wear uniforms, undergo training, and work exclusively for the club. They claimed they worked between 40 and 54 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation. We previously reported about other IC misclassification cases in New York and New Jersey in our blog post of February 6, 2023 and our post on June 16, 2025. Lewis v. Pelham Country Club, No. 7:23-cv-06500 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2026).

Content Creation Studio Sued for IC Misclassification of Video and Photo Editors. A group of ten video and photo editors have sued the defendant, which describes itself as a “content studio that combines robotic camera systems, workflow and studio automation software, and a proprietary production process to create consistent, high-volume, ready-to-deploy digital assets for … B2B or ecommerce platforms.” The editors allege that they provide video and photo editing, image-retouching, and styling services. They claim they properly invoiced the studio on a weekly basis for services performed, consistent with the terms of their IC agreements, but the company failed to pay them for all services provided. Whitrock v. ShowLabs Inc., No. 2026CV32504 (2d Jud. Dist. Colo. July 8, 2026).

Staffing Company Settles IC Misclassification Lawsuit with Illinois Attorney General. The state of Illinois has reached a settlement with an online staffing platform that allegedly misclassified workers as ICs instead of employees, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage law and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. The staffing company describes itself as a” staffing solution for your business” where you can “[h]ire, manage, and pay workers with one powerful platform.” According to a July 2, 2026 News Release issued by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), an OAG investigation revealed that workers placed through the company’s online platform were misclassified as ICs under Illinois law, did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, or did not receive minimum wages under Illinois law. Additionally, the investigation disclosed that workers were not paid a mandatory four-hour minimum as required by the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act when they were scheduled for jobs that were later canceled. The settlement allows 479 eligible employees to recover unpaid wages, including penalties and interest owed to them by the company. The settlement also requires the company to classify workers as employees (instead of ICs) with an array of employee benefits afforded under Illinois law, including unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and the right to receive minimum wage, overtime wages, and four-hour minimum pay. People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Kwame Raoul v. GigSmart Inc., No. 2026CH06398 (Cir. Ct. Cook County Ill. July 2, 2026).

Legislative Initiatives

Portable Benefits Now Available to Workers Classified as ICs in Yet Another State. On July 2, 2026, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed into law a bill (HB 1245) allowing ICs and companies that engage such workers to voluntarily participate in portable benefit plans without affecting the workers’ status as ICs. As noted in our blog post of April 7, 2026 and our post on June 9, 2026, courts and administrative agencies typically consider a company’s provision of workplace benefits, such as health insurance, income replacement insurance, disability and life insurance, and retirement benefits, to be indicative of employment status. However, the New Hampshire law, effective August 31, 2026, provides that the offer of, or contribution to, a portable benefit account by a “hiring party” shall not be used as a criterion or factor for determining a worker’s status as an IC or employee. Likewise, the law provides that an IC’s participation in or control over such a plan or account shall not be considered when making a determination about a worker’s status. Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia are some of the other states that have enacted these types of portable benefits laws.

Written by Richard Reibstein, Publisher
Compiled and edited by Janet Barsky, Managing Editor