Source: https://casetext.com/statute/general-laws-of-massachusetts/part-i-administration-of-the-government/title-xxi-labor-and-industries/chapter-149-labor-and-industries/section-149148b-persons-performing-service-not-authorized-under-this-chapter-deemed-employees-exception/analysis?ref=Sjd!5399O_&citingPage=1&sort=relevance
Timestamp: 2019-12-09 08:53:14
Document Index: 61015012

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 148', '§ 148', '§ 148', '§ 148', '§ 148', '§ 148', '§148', '§ 148']

Analyses of Section 149:148B - Persons performing service not authorized under this chapter deemed employees; exception, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 148B | Casetext
ReadReadAnnotationsAnnotations4Attorney AnalysesAnalyses22Citing BriefsBriefs22Citing CasesCiting Cases95
22 Analyses of this statute by attorneys
Chartwell LawJamie Spiller KaplanJune 29, 2019
Bowditch & DeweyJon BarooshianJanuary 12, 2017
Massachusetts presumes that a worker is an “ employee” unless the employing entity can satisfy each prong of a three-prong, independent contractor test. The test is found in M.G.L. c. 149, § 148B, which provides: (a)For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 151, an individual performing any service, except as authorized under this chapter, shall be considered to be an employee under those chapters unless: (1)the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and (2)the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and, (3)the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. Subsection (d) also provides for potential civil and criminal penalties for a failure to properly classify an employee.
LittlerAugust 9, 2019
However, for the ease of the reader, in this report we will simply refer to the California test as “the ABC test.”184 Cal.5th 903 (2018).19See Mass. Gen. Laws c. 149, § 148B;Dynamex, Slip Op. at 68-69.20Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th at 958-962.21Id.22Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th at 959-960 (internal citations omitted).23Id.at 962 (italics in the original) (internal citation omitted).242019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13237, 2019 WL 1945001 (9th Cir. May 2, 2019).25Patrick Stokes, Bruce Sarchet, and Michael Lotito,Ninth Circuit Withdraws Opinion Regarding Retroactivity of Dynamex v. Superior Court, Will Certify the Question to the California Supreme Court, Littler ASAP (July 24, 2019).26For example, the current exception for real estate licensees provides: (1) if the licensee falls within the scope of section 10032 of the Business and Professions Code, then that section will apply; (2) if section 10032 does not apply, then: (a) for purposes of unemployment insurance, Unemployment Insurance Code section 650 will apply; (b) for purposes of workers compensation, Labor Code section 3200,et. seq., will apply; and (c) for all other purposes under the Labor Code, theBorellotest will apply.27Unde
LeClairRyanDaniel BlakeAugust 21, 2018
As an aside, entities engaging independent contractors should ensure that they satisfy the stringent requirements of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor law. (M.G.L. c. 149 § 148B.)Employees Who May Not Be Subject to Noncompete AgreementsThe law provides that noncompete agreements may not be enforced against the following types of employees:§Employees who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (i.e. employees eligible for overtime);§Undergraduate or graduate students who are employed as interns or are engaged in short-term employment, as well as employees under the age of 18;§Employees who have been terminated without “cause” or who have been laid off.The law does not define what constitutes “cause” for termination, and employers may be well served by including a definition of what constitutes cause for termination in their noncompete agreements.
LeClairRyanDaniel BlakeAugust 17, 2018
As an aside, entities engaging independent contractors should ensure that they satisfy the stringent requirements of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor law. (M.G.L. c. 149 § 148B.)Employees Who May Not Be Subject to Noncompete Agreements The law provides that noncompete agreements may not be enforced against the following types of employees: Employees who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (i.e. employees eligible for overtime); Undergraduate or graduate students who are employed as interns or are engaged in short-term employment, as well as employees under the age of 18; Employees who have been terminated without “cause” or who have been laid off.
LeClairRyanDaniel BlakeAugust 10, 2018
As an aside, entities engaging independent contractors should ensure that they satisfy the stringent requirements of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor law. (M.G.L. c. 149 § 148B.)Employees Who May Not Be Subject to Noncompete Agreements The law provides that noncompete agreements may not be enforced against the following types of employees: • Employees who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (i.e. employees eligible for overtime); • Undergraduate or graduate students who are employed as interns or are engaged in short-term employment, as well as employees under the age of 18; • Employees who have been terminated without “cause” or who have been laid off.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLPRichard PlewackiJanuary 6, 2017
Over the last two years, the Benesch Transportation & Logistics Team has written in various installments of the FLASH about the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §148B (the “Massachusetts ‘ABC’ Test”). The Massachusetts “ABC” Test provides that a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor if the employer can show that: (A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and (B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer, and (C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.Robert SheaJanuary 6, 2017
The SJC ruling aligns with the First Circuit’s decision in Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.Massachusetts Independent Contractor Test The independent contractor test used in applying Massachusetts wage statutes is arguably the most difficult such test in the nation. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 149, section 148B creates a presumption that an individual performing a service for an employer is an employee. To rebut the presumption of employee status, the employer must satisfy all three prongs of the following test: (1) The individual must be free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; (2) the service must be performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (3) the individual must be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPLisa Stephanian BurtonDecember 21, 2016
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that the most onerous provision of the state’s three-pronged independent contractor statute—the requirement that independent contractors perform a service outside an employer’s usual business—is preempted by federal law as it applies to delivery drivers. The SJC’s decision reinforces the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s precedent upholding federal preemption of a portion of the Commonwealth’s Independent Contractor law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B (the Independent Contractor Statute or the Statute), a law that provides some of the strongest protections in the United States when classifying employees as independent contractors.Chambers, et. al. v. RDI Logistics, Inc., et.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.Gauri PunjabiMay 21, 2016
Relying on its precedent, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held for the second time this year that the Federal Aviation Administrative Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) preempts application of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, M.G.L. c. 149, Section 148B, to couriers working for Federal Express and other same-day delivery companies. As a result, these companies can continue to save billions of dollars each year in the costs associated with employees, such as overtime, health benefits, and workers compensation insurance.The Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute Ever since Massachusetts amended its Independent Contractor Statute in 2008, it has become far more difficult for employers to demonstrate that their workers are independent contractors, because they must show all three of the following requirements: (1) that the individual is free from the employer’s control and direction, (2) the service is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.