This month’s news update highlights the increased focus on class action IC misclassification lawsuits brought against transportation industry clients and ride-sharing companies like Uber.  The successes enjoyed to date by most class action lawyers alleging IC misclassification reflects the fact that many companies using ICs have not yet effectively minimized

Recently, Mary Kay, Inc. was sued in New Jersey for allegedly misclassifying a class of direct sellers as independent contractors in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. While there are direct seller exemptions from laws governing unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and the payment and withholding of employment taxes,

Today Uber drivers were issued a favorable ruling by the federal district court judge hearing the independent contractor misclassification class action case brought by Uber drivers against the giant ride-sharing company in its own backyard in Northern California. But, there was little doubt as to how the court was likely

Few independent contractor agreements we have reviewed, even those of Fortune 500 companies, are relatively free from clauses that undermine the IC relationship because such agreements typically contain clauses that retain the company’s right to direct or control the manner and means of performing services. As discussed in my blog

On August 6, 2015, Uber drivers in California sought preliminary approval of their motion for class certification in their independent contractor misclassification lawsuit. A hearing was scheduled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Edward M. Chen on the drivers’ motion for class certification.

Shortly after Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton placed independent contractor misclassification in the national spotlight in mid-July 2015 when she prominently commented in a campaign speech upon the expanding use of ICs in the “gig economy,” it has been reported that Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Al Franken (D-MN) have introduced