Opinion ID: 621257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Massachusetts Statute Defining Employees

Text: The state law challenged as unconstitutional is part of a state statutory scheme meant to enhance protections for those whom the state considers to be employees, in contrast to independent contractors. See Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 454 Mass. 582, 911 N.E.2d 739, 749 (2009). This provision was initially enacted in 1990 as [an act] enhancing the enforcement of labor laws. 1990 Mass. Legis. Serv. 464. Amended in 2004, the law currently 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. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B. [1] Subsection (a) provides that individuals performing services shall be deemed employees, unless all of the requirements outlined in the three subsections are satisfied. See Somers, 911 N.E.2d at 747 (The failure of the employer to prove all three criteria set forth above suffices to establish that the individual in question is an employee.). Section 148B governs whether an individual is deemed an employee for purposes of various wage and employment laws, chapters 62B, 149, 151 and 152 of the Massachusetts General Laws. [2] See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B(a), (d). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has said that [a] legislative purpose behind the independent contractor statute is to protect employees from being deprived of the benefits enjoyed by employees through their misclassification as independent contractors. Somers, 911 N.E.2d at 749. If an employing entity improperly classifies an employee as an independent contractor under § 148B, [3] a variety of sanctions are available, including civil and criminal penalties to be assessed by the state. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§ 27C, 148B(d). But the state is not always involved in disputes about compliance with § 148B. Independently, employees who allege improper classification as independent contractors may bring their own actions for injunctive relief and treble damages, and may bring such suits as class actions. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 150; see also Somers, 911 N.E.2d at 748. Before bringing suit, such employees must first file a complaint with the Attorney General; employees must wait to file suit in court until 90 days after filing such a complaint, although they may file earlier if the Attorney General consents in writing. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 150. When an employee brings suit, he institute[s] and prosecute[s] [it] in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and others similarly situated, [as] a civil action. Id. He does not bring suit in the name of the state. Nor does he have the range of remedies available to the Attorney General. The MDA alleges that its members must change their fundamental business modelthe use of independent contractor delivery driversto comply with the state statute or risk penalties. No other state, the MDA alleges, has made unlawful this use of the historic business model. The Massachusetts law, it says, would force motor carriers to use only employees as delivery drivers, which would drive up costs, and adversely affect prices, routes, and services. Not only is the law expressly pre-empted but it also imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce, according to the MDA.