You may have wondered where New York’s so-called Freelance Isn’t Free Law went after it was enacted into law in November 2023. Well, it was repealed before it became effective and was replaced earlier this year with a new version of the same law. The 2024 edition becomes effective on August 28, 2024. However, it retains all of the flaws that we pointed out in our December 14, 2023 blog post about the 2023 law. Those defects include a double damages provision that can be imposed against a company even if its failure to pay is due to a good faith belief that the services provided by the independent contractor (IC) did not meet contract specifications. The new law also includes a special damages provision that can have a draconian impact on a company. For businesses using ICs in New York and elsewhere, we suggest you consider some of all of the steps in our “Takeaways” below to counteract the law’s serious flaws. Those steps can also serve businesses well as they face similarly defective freelancer pay protection laws enacted so far in Illinois and a number of municipalities, including Los Angeles and New York City.

Last month, two key legal developments in the area of independent contractor misclassification and compliance highlighted the risks posed to customer service companies that use an independent contractor business model. The first involves a Colorado company using agents to provide customer support through an app-based platform. The company was sued in a proposed class and collective action lawsuit based on the allegation that the company misclassified the agents as ICs and not employees. The second involves a $3 million settlement between a nationwide customer service support company and the U.S. Department of Labor, which sued the company alleging it had misclassified as ICs the workers that provide customer service to its clients. Many companies in the customer service industry use an independent contractor business model. Workers in that type of trade or occupation usually can be classified legally as ICs under federal and most state laws if their relationships with the companies engaging their services is structured, documented, and implemented in a manner that enhances compliance with those laws. One way some companies have elevated their level of IC compliance is by a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM), a comprehensive system that minimizes IC misclassification liability in a customized and sustainable manner consistent with applicable laws.

Lawyers representing ride share drivers have argued for years that their clients are being misclassified as independent contractors under federal and state laws. They have attained little success, however, obtaining definitive rulings in their favor, particularly in states that have adopted a multi-factor test for independent contractor status, like the federal standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Two consecutive hung juries in a Pennsylvania federal district court confirm that the classification status of ride share drivers is unclear. These events serve as a rejoinder to worker advocacy groups that have repeatedly asserted that ride share companies misclassify drivers. While their arguments have led to rulings in favor of employee status in the two states with strict ABC type wage laws (California and Massachusetts), the recent hung jury results in Pennsylvania confirm that independent contractor status of ride share drivers is at best murky in state and under federal law. Nonetheless, ride share and other gig economy companies can tilt the scales in their favor. Many businesses have resorted to a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM) to enhance the structure, documentation, and implementation of IC relationships in a customized and sustainable manner, maximizing compliance with IC laws and minimizing exposure from IC misclassification claims.

Class action independent contractor misclassification cases continue to be filed and most seem to settle, often for large sums, as we have reported in our blog posts on legal developments each month. But some industries have countered this trend in one of three ways: legislation, voter initiatives, and a choice not to settle but rather vigorously defend. Two of those approaches were on display last month. In one, the real estate industry in New Jersey effectively used the legislative approach. In the face of what it regarded as a likely industry-altering development if the strict ABC test for IC status under the New Jersey wage payment and wage and hour laws was applied to certain real estate salespersons in that state, the industry sought a legislative change. In 2022, the New Jersey legislature amended the real estate law to exempt real estate salespersons from the state’s ABC test. Last month the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the law not only overrode that strict test for IC status, but it did so retroactively. Another industry used the vigorous defense approach in a class action invoking the wage payment law in Pennsylvania. That case involved a well-known baked goods manufacturer, which successfully secured a federal court appellate ruling that it was entitled to summary judgment holding that distributors of its food products were properly classified as ICs. Although other food product manufacturers had not prevailed in similar class and collective action cases initiated by distributors, this case demonstrates that structuring, documenting, and implementing IC relationships in a manner that maximizes compliance with IC laws – the three key steps in a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM) – can lead to successful results in court, especially in situations involving well-compensated independent contractors.

We are frequently asked by businesses about workers’ compensation coverage for independent contractors. Clients ask us: Can our company cover independent contractors with workers’ compensation insurance? Is it safer for us if we do so? Or better not to? Like many issues involving independent contractor compliance, there is no one answer to these questions because workers’ comp is governed by state laws, which vary from state to state, and even under a single state’s law, the answer may depend on the nature of the services being provided by the independent contractor. One part of a comprehensive compliance process such as IC Diagnostics (TM) provides businesses with approaches to enhance compliance with independent contractor laws and minimize misclassification liability relating to workers’ comp matters.

Is an independent food distributor exempt from an arbitration agreement under the interstate transportation worker exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)? That was the question that the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in its April 12, 2024 opinion involving a distributor of products manufactured by a baked goods company. In its opinion, the Supreme Court made it clear that a worker need not provide services to a company in the transportation industry to be considered an interstate transportation worker; to the contrary, it ruled that an individual can provide services to a company in an industry other than transportation and still invoke the interstate transportation worker exemption. But that only answered the threshold question about the scope of the exemption, leaving a very fact-specific inquiry for lower courts to address: in what activities must the worker be engaged in order to be considered an interstate transportation worker under the FAA, and to what extent must the worker be involved in such activities? The Supreme Court’s test for the availability of the exemption, explained below, will create years of litigation in the lower courts and a great deal of uncertainty. Fortunately, for companies that face these issues, such uncertainty can be averted by drafting arbitration agreements that rely on state arbitration laws in addition to the FAA. Effective and well-drafted arbitration agreements are one of the tools businesses have utilized to minimize independent contractor misclassification exposure from class actions. They remain an essential part of a compliance process such as IC Diagnostics (TM), which is used by an increasing number of savvy companies to manage their IC relationships.

Two court cases we summarize below, decided in March 2024, demonstrate that while some companies may prevail in an IC misclassification lawsuit, others do not. Why? As a starting point, the legal test for IC status under the federal wage and hour law differs from the test under most state wage laws, and a number of states have different tests for IC status depending on whether the claims are brought for unpaid wages, reimbursement of expenses, workers’ compensation, or unemployment benefits. Do cases typically turn on what law is applicable? Sometimes, but not usually. More often, it’s the facts that matter more than the law. For example, the first case reported below involves a carpenter who was found to have been misclassified as an IC. Yet, in a prior blog post, we reported on a case in which other carpenters were found to be properly classified as ICs. The different results have far less to do with the law than the facts in those cases. What these types of cases teach is that companies can minimize their misclassification liabilities, regardless of the applicable tests for IC status, if their IC relationships are structured, documented, and implemented in a way that maximizes compliance with most if not all IC laws. Can that be done? Yes, indeed many companies have accomplished that objective in a customized and sustainable manner through a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM).

Independent contractors can pose safety and security risks as much as employees. Some go into customer homes. Others have access to personally identifiable information and proprietary business information. Some independent contractors drive trucks making deliveries for companies identified by logos on the vehicles. So, businesses should be able to lawfully obtain criminal background checks on these types of independent contractors, right? Not so fast.

Two cases reported below in our review of legal developments in February 2024 address reclassification of independent contractors.  The first case is one in which a state and county sought enforcement of California’s strict ABC test for independent contractor status and secured a settlement against a staffing company including its agreement to reclassify workers as employees whom it had previously classified as ICs.  The second lawsuit involves a group of workers first engaged as independent contractors and then converted to employees.  Many companies that use ICs question whether they should reclassify their contractors and begin to treat them as employees in the hope that they can avoid IC misclassification lawsuits. The act of reclassifying workers as W-2 employees after treating them as 1099 independent contractors can, however, not only prompt an IC misclassification lawsuit but, if not done in an appropriate manner, can also be used as evidence that the workers were initially misclassified. In contrast, especially in states like California and Massachusetts with their ultra-strict ABC tests for IC status, reclassifying workers from IC to employee status as part of a settlement of a lawsuit is an option some employers have considered. The approach taken by the overwhelming number of companies, however, is not to reclassify, which can create the impetus for an IC misclassification lawsuit and typically is not financially feasible. Rather, most prudent businesses seek to enhance compliance with laws governing the use of ICs. One process used by an increasing number of businesses is IC Diagnostics (TM), which enhances IC compliance by restructuring, re-documenting, and re-implementing IC relationships in a customized and sustainable manner consistent with the company’s business model. The only approach that makes little sense is to do nothing and instead risk a legal proceeding brought by a government agency or plaintiffs’ class action lawyer, as in the first two cases reported below.

On January 9, 2024, the same day the U.S. Department of Labor issued its final rule on independent contractor status, we published a comprehensive blog post analyzing and commenting on the new regulation, which goes into effect less than a week from now on March 11, 2024.  We have heard from numerous clients that have an IC business model, expressing concern that the legal landscape will change on that date.  It won’t. As we noted in our January 9 post, “The legal impact of the final rule … will hardly ripple the waters. After all, it is the courts that create law on this subject, not regulatory agencies.”  But we also cautioned that “the final rule issued today will give renewed impetus to disaffected workers classified as independent contractors to file class actions seeking minimum wage, overtime payments, and employee benefits under applicable laws.” We commented further that “This is likely to propel more companies using independent contractors to take steps to enhance their IC compliance by using a process such as IC Diagnostics (TM) to restructure, re-document, and re-implement their relationships with ICs in a customized and sustainable manner, consistent with their business model.”  That is exactly what we have seen – more companies have been attacked by IC misclassification lawsuits while at the same time more companies are seeking to maximize their compliance with laws governing ICs.