Source: https://independentcontractorcompliance.com/2018/09/07/august-2018-independent-contractor-misclassification-and-compliance-news-update/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:14:19+00:00

Document:
Posted on September 7, 2018	by Richard J. Reibstein, Esq.
August 2018 was a busy month in the area of independent contractor misclassification and compliance, including a number of new court filings and decisions, new regulatory initiatives, and new legislation. While none of these matters were blockbuster developments, they do provide an important message for businesses that use ICs.
One notable feature of the news updates reported below is that they cover developments in a diverse geographical area – in states on the East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, South, and the District of Columbia. The cases summarized below also involve a diverse set of businesses – small companies operating in a single state as well as large businesses operating nationwide. Those companies involved conduct business in extremely varied industries such as mortuary transportation, construction, online shopping, delivery services, home inspection, and airlines. Finally, while some states passed laws or took regulatory initiatives seeking to combat IC misclassification, other states, like New York and Massachusetts, expanded the type of legal protections that are normally reserved for employees to cover independent contractors as well.
So, what’s the takeaway? Independent contractor misclassification and compliance issues arise in virtually every industry; affect companies of all sizes; arise in pretty much every state; and expose those businesses that use ICs to a variety of existing and new laws including those that can create considerable liability and legal expense.
This explains why sophisticated businesses using ICs have taken steps to minimize their risk of IC misclassification liability. Many of those businesses have resorted to a process such as IC Diagnostics™ to enhance their compliance with federal and state IC laws, expand their operations in states with laws that do not tend to restrict the legitimate use of ICs, and curtail operations in states with laws that are IC-unfriendly.
MORTUARY DRIVERS GRANTED CLASS CERTIFICATION IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION. In a case against Serenity Transportation, a company that transports deceased persons for various clients, including hospitals and mortuaries, a federal court has granted class certification to mortuary drivers seeking damages for IC misclassification under state and federal wage/hour laws. The drivers alleged they are subject to direction and control by Serenity because they were required to follow the company’s detailed and restrictive policies upon “hire.” The lawsuit seeks damages for allegedly unpaid on-call time, expenses reimbursement, and wage statement and waiting time penalties as well as unfair competition. The court clarified that should the trier of fact find that the on-call time is compensable, then the plaintiff’s overtime, minimum wage and meal and rest break claims may proceed on a class-wide basis as well – otherwise such claims may be litigated on an individual basis. Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc., No. 15-cv-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018).
AMAZON UNABLE TO MOVE IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION BY DRIVERS INTO FEDERAL COURT. Amazon has failed to remove an IC misclassification class action from a Massachusetts state court into a federal court in that state. The complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court on behalf of a proposed class of drivers who alleged wage violations under Massachusetts laws, including failure to reimburse drivers for business expenses, failure to pay drivers for hours worked after a shift ended, and failure to pay the minimum wage. Amazon filed a Notice of Removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which requires that the amount in controversy exceed the federal court jurisdictional threshold of $5,000,000 for all proposed class members. Amazon estimated that damages for the class members would be at least $4.4 million, just under $20,000 for the named plaintiff, and $600,000 in legal fees (attorneys’ fees may be included in reaching the $5 million jurisdictional threshold under CAFA).
In granting the drivers’ motion to remand the case to state court, the federal court reasoned that even assuming the damage calculations for unreimbursed expenses, unpaid wages and minimum wage violations were accurate, Amazon’s assertion that attorneys’ fees for the class would equal or exceed $600,000 was speculative. The court rejected Amazon’s argument that because plaintiff’s counsel had previously spent between 900 and 1,800 hours on other misclassification cases, it would likely spend 1,200 hours on this case. Instead, the court concluded that it was equally likely that this case would be decided on summary judgment or settle at an early stage. The court stated, “Given that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees through this motion totaled only $11,700, and that Plaintiff has shown that cases under Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law are routinely decided on summary judgment, it is unreasonably speculative to assume that this will be a heavily litigated case that amasses over $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.” Waithaka v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 4:17-cv-40141 (D. Mass. Aug. 28, 2018).
OHIO COURIER COMPANY SETTLES IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION FOR $600,000. An Ohio federal court has approved a $600,000 settlement of a class and collective action brought by drivers against Premier Courier, Inc. for alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, minimum wage and overtime requirements of state wage and hour laws, and the Ohio Fraudulent Transfer Act, claiming they were misclassified as independent contractors and not employees. The class and collective action complaint had alleged that the drivers were economically dependent on the company; the work the drivers performed was integral to the company’s primary business; the drivers worked in low-paying jobs requiring relatively low skill and held positions for long periods of time; the company determined the type of work performed by the drivers as well as their hours of work; the company set the fees to be paid to the driver and required them to wear uniforms and badges; and the company controlled the work the drivers performed and the manner in which they were to perform it. Wright v. Premier Courier, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00420 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2018).
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SUED BY D.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS. The District of Columbia Attorney General has filed suit against Power Design, Inc., a national electrical contractor headquartered in Florida, for allegedly misclassifying at least 535 electrical workers as independent contractors “in a[n alleged] scheme to cut costs and avoid legal responsibilities.” The D.C. Attorney General also sued two other companies described as “labor brokers” that were hired by Power Design to engage workers and dispatch them to provide services as independent contractors at Power Design construction sites. In its August 6, 2018 press release, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia stated that in misclassifying the workers, the companies violated the D.C. Workplace Fraud Act (applicable only to the construction industry), the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act, the D.C. Sick and Safe Leave Act and the D.C. Unemployment Compensation Act. D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine added: “Power Design cheated hundreds of District workers out of their hard-earned wages and stripped them of their legal rights. When companies misclassify employees as independent contractors, they steal from their workers and gain an unfair advantage over competitors that follow the law.” According to the allegations in the complaint, Power Design “exercised significant – if not total – control and direction over the labor broker workers” because the company unilaterally set the work schedules; required workers to wear a specific uniform and provided most of the tools and supplies; set policies that were expected to be followed; closely supervised the workers’ work production a daily basis; and had the power to terminate its relationship with a worker without consulting the labor broker. District of Columbia v. Power Design, Inc., Super. Ct. D.C. Aug. 6, 2018.
RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION AGENTS FILE IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. ServiceLink Field Services, LLC, a home inspection company performing services for its financial institution clients, has been sued by residential inspection agents in a class action complaint filed in California state court for alleged wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code. The plaintiff claims that the inspection agents were misclassified as independent contractors and not employees. The inspectors allegedly were not paid for all hours worked; not paid at least the minimum wage; not paid for meal or rest breaks, travel time, or work performed at home; and not paid for supplies and maintenance of their vehicles, among other things. According to the complaint, “Defendant ServiceLink contracts with third party vendors to either perform inspections themselves and/or provide and pay other class members to perform ServiceLink inspections.” In support of the misclassification claims, the agents claim that inspections must be performed pursuant to ServiceLink policies, procedures, and directions within timeframes set by ServiceLink. Collins v. ServiceLink Field Services, LLC, No. 37-2018-00040352-CU-OE-CTL (Aug. 10, 2018).
GROUP OF THREE CASES BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT COULD IMPACT NATIONWIDE COMPANIES SENDING IC’S TO THAT STATE FOR LIMITED PERIODS OF TIME. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has certified three questions of law to the California Supreme Court involving the applicability of that state’s wage and hour laws to workers who only work episodically in that state. Pilots and flight attendants for United Airlines and Delta Air Lines commenced lawsuits alleging violations of the California Labor Code. They are seeking to apply California law to their claims despite the de minimis amount of time they spend working in California.
The district courts each granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In certifying these questions to the California Supreme Court related to extraterritorial application of state laws, the Ninth Circuit stated: “There is no controlling California precedent on the question whether California labor law applies to an employee who works for an out-of-state employer and does not work principally, or even for days at a time, in California.” The three certified questions are: (1) Do California Labor Code §§ 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? (2) Does the California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? and (3) Does the California Labor Code § 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state?
The court further reasoned that these certified questions are of great importance to the many California residents who work only episodically in California and to the many employers who regularly send California residents to work outside of the state. These questions are equally of importance to businesses that engage contractors to perform services in that state on an episodic or occasional basis. Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 889 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2018); Vidrio v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 17-55471 (9th Cir. 2018); Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 889 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2018).
NEW MASSACHUSETTS NON-COMPETE LAW APPLIES TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. On August 10, 2018, Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts signed into law new, expansive non-compete legislation that applies not only to employees but also to independent contractors. Under the new law, which the state legislature had been debating for 10 years, Massachusetts employers must comply with new non-compete rules for agreements that are executed on or after October 1, 2018. This new law defines the term “employee” as including independent contractors. The Massachusetts law reportedly aims to prevent overuse of non-competes by prohibiting their usage with employees and/or ICs who are: categorized as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act; part-time and full-time undergraduate or graduate students; terminated without cause or laid off; or under the age of 18. To be valid and enforceable, the non-compete must, among other things, be provided to the worker with his/her formal offer of employment or 10 days prior to the worker’s first day of work, whichever is earlier; generally be signed by the employer and the worker; be limited to a 12-month period; be no broader than necessary to protect certain legitimate business interests of the employer; and be reasonable in geographic reach and scope in relation to the interests sought to be protected.
NEW YORK’S NEW SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW NOW PROTECTS IC’S AS WELL. The New York State Human Rights Law has been expanded to add sexual harassment protections for independent contractors. As part of the recently-passed New York State Budget Bill, the Human Rights Law was amended to provide that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to permit sexual harassment of “non-employees” in its workplace. Under the new law, an employer may now be held liable to a non-employee who is a contractor, subcontractor, consultant, or vendor, when the employer, its agents, or supervisors knew or should have known that the non-employee was subjected to sexual harassment in the employer’s workplace and the employer failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. This expansion of the law is noteworthy because, until now, independent contractors did not share the same protections with regard to sexual harassment as employees did. This new law provides recourse to independent contractors and should sensitize employers to the fact that such contractors can be subjected to sexual harassment in their workplace as well as employees.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 226
 v. 
 v. 
 v.