The first case on which we report below involves a class action lawsuit asserting independent contractor (IC) misclassification involving Lawyer.com. A plaintiff who answered calls to this well-known legal referral business alleges that he, along with others who are similarly situated, should have been classified as employees instead of ICs. The plaintiff in this case characterizes his work as a call center representative. This filing is the second such lawsuit against the legal industry in the past six months. We reported on a similar class action lawsuit in a blog post this past July, where a legal consultant sued a business providing client intake and retention services for personal injury law firms. Few industries are immune from legal challenges alleging IC misclassification, and the legal industry has now become a target of class action lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits of this nature. Businesses that use an IC business model can minimize their exposure to these types of lawsuits by using a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM) to determine whether their IC relationships can be structured and documented in a manner that can meet applicable federal and state tests for IC status and, if so, how they can do so in a customized and sustainable manner.

In the Courts (3 cases)

LAWYER.COM SUED FOR IC MISCLASSIFICATION IN NEW JERSEY. A legal marketing and client support company was sued in federal court in New Jersey last month for allegedly misclassifying as ICs representatives and sales employees for Lawyer.com, a business that fields inquiries from prospective clients seeking legal representation. The plaintiff contends that Lawyer.com specified procedures and prepared scripts that he and others in his position needed to follow when responding to customer inquiries. He also asserts that Lawyer.com trained him and the other representatives, supervised them, and utilized performance metrics to evaluate workers’ performance. As a result, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff and other representatives should have been paid overtime for hours worked in excess of zero in a workweek, to which employees are entitled under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Greenlee v. Lawyer.com Inc., No. 3:25-cv-17771 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2025).

APP-BASED STAFFING COMPANY SETTLES WITH COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLAIM. Instawork, an app-based staffing company, has been sued for IC misclassification a second time in the past four months. As we reported in a blog post in August, Instawork was sued in federal court in Ohio for unfair competition and tortious interference with business and contractual relationships due to its alleged misclassification of gig workers as ICs and not employees. That lawsuit, which was filed “on behalf of a leading W2 [hospitality and light industrial] staffing platform that connects businesses with W2 employees,” claimed that Instawork unlawfully undercut competitors, such as the plaintiff hiring entity, who “follow the law.” Last month, Instawork assented to the entry of a judicial consent decree resolving a similar type of litigation initiated by the Colorado Department of Labor under the Colorado False Claims Act. The Colorado state Attorney General (AG) announced in a press release issued November 24, 2025, that he had reached a settlement with Instawork after a state audit found the company and its affiliate violated the Colorado False Claims Act and its Employment Security Act. The Colorado lawsuit alleged that Instawork failed to pay unemployment insurance premiums on behalf of workers called “pros,” who provide services on an hourly basis to company clients in industries such as hospitality, warehousing, manufacturing, and cleaning. It also contended that Instawork engaged in a complex vetting process, conducted multistep background checks, undertook location tracking and performance evaluations of the “pros,” and required them to undergo training. If approved by the court, the proposed settlement requires payment of over $400,000 in unemployment insurance contributions and liquidated damages, and provides that henceforth all “pros” will be classified by Instawork as employees in Colorado. State of Colorado v. Garuda Labs Inc. d/b/a Instawork, No. 2025CV34220 (Colo. Dist. Ct. for the City and County of Denver Nov. 24, 2025).

TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL SETTLES WITH NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION LAWSUIT COVERING INSTRUCTORS. A New Jersey truck driving school that engages instructors to provide students with Commercial Driver License (CDL) course instruction has entered into a judicial consent decree with the State’s Attorney General in a lawsuit alleging that the school misclassified the instructors as ICs instead of employees. The New Jersey AG announced the settlement against Jersey Tractor Trailer Training, Inc. in a press release issued on November 25, 2025. The settlement followed an investigation by the New Jersey Department of Labor that led to a determination that the company misclassified CDL instructors as ICs. The lawsuit alleged violations of state wage and hour and other employment laws, including failure to pay overtime and earned sick leave. Under the terms of the $345,000 settlement, the driving school will pay damages to eligible driving instructors and pay $125,000 to the state to satisfy all penalties, fees, and costs associated with bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the workers. The settlement also requires the school to treat all current and future instructors as employees under all applicable state labor and employment laws. Robert Asaro-Angelo v. Jersey Tractor Trailer Training, Inc., No. BER-L-005236-24 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Bergen County Nov. 25, 2025).

Other Noteworthy News

THIS BLOG’S PUBLISHER QUOTED ON IC MISCLASSIFICATION ACTIONS BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL. The recent surge in AG lawsuits for IC misclassification was the subject of an article last month by Max Kutner for Law360. In the article published on November 5, 2025, titled “State AG Actions Secure Workers’ Pay But Not Status,” the publisher of this blog was quoted as follows: “On the whole, state agency enforcement actions represent a nuisance and not an existential threat,” and “despite their high profile, such cases tend to result in lower amounts in judgments or settlements.” The quote by this publisher continued: “They are effective at putting independent contractor misclassification claims into public light. On the other hand, they do not present anywhere near the same financial risk to companies as do independent contractor misclassification class actions.” As noted in the article, many enforcement actions by state AGs result in a financial recovery but do not require companies to reclassify their workers. The two AG enforcement actions noted above in this month’s blog post are two notable actions that required the defendant business to reclassify workers as employees.