The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the transportation worker exemption under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court addressed whether contracts signed by individual delivery drivers, even when they work through their own corporations, count as “contracts of employment” that are exempt from mandatory arbitration. In this instance, the court
This week, my colleague Sarah Westby and I published a detailed look at the new legal cannabis law in Connecticut and what it means for employers. I’m not going to duplicate the post here but strongly encourage you to read it.
One thing that didn’t make it in the post was strange provision found in
Back in 2011, I discussed a titillating case of strip club dancers (or, a decision says, “performers”, “entertainers”, “dancers” or even “exotic dancers” — although not “strippers”) who were trying to claim wages for the time they worked at a popular strip club in Connecticut.
The story at the time was that they were compelled
I’m back with news of a relatively big decision today from the Connecticut Supreme Court.
In the decision, the Court clarified an important question that the Connecticut Department of Labor had been pushing hard. It will be welcome news for businesses in the state.
The issue was this: If an independent contractor (and his or
My colleagues, Clarisse Thomas, Keegan Drenosky and I have been busy keeping track of the developments in New York which may impact Connecticut employers with cross-border business. Here are two of the most recent developments.
Freelance Isn’t Free
The New York City Council has enacted and the Mayor has signed a new law applicable to
As Connecticut employers of a certain size know, Connecticut implemented Paid Sick Leave recently which affords employees up to five days off a year. Now, federal contractors (including those in Connecticut) have another layer to deal with. As my colleague Ashley Marshall explains below, paid sick leave will now be a requirement later this
My colleagues at Shipman & Goodwin have, for a lot longer than I have been doing this blog, have been producing the Employment Law Letter recapping some stories you might have missed over each quarter or so.
This week, a new newsletter was released and it touches on several topics of interest.
You’ve no doubt heard lots about how the U.S. Department of Labor is cracking down on independent contractors. I’ve recapped it before and my former colleague, Jonathan Orleans, has a new post regarding Uber & electricians.
But in my view, there is a larger, more important battle now being fought in Connecticut and you may not be aware of it. I touched on it briefly in a post in July but it’s worth digging a little deeper. Disappointingly, I have not seen anything written about this in the press (legal or mainstream).
A case recently transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court docket threatens to cause lots of havoc to company usage of independent contractors in Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of Labor has taken an aggressive stance in the case which is leading to this big battle.
The case is Standard Oil of Connecticut v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act and is awaiting oral argument. You can download the state’s brief here and the employer’s brief here. The employer’s reply brief is also here.
The employer (Standard Oil) argues in the case that it uses contractors (called “installers/technicians”) to install heating oil and alarm systems and repair and service heating systems at times of peak demand. The state reclassified the installers/technicians as employees and assessed taxes and interest. At issue is the application of the ABC Test which is used in Connecticut to determine if these people are employees or independent contractors.
As explained by the CTDOL:
The ABC Test applies three factors (A, B, and C) for determining a worker’s employment status. To be considered an “independent contractor,” an individual must meet all three of the following factors:
A. The individual must be free from direction and control (work independently) in connection with the performance of the service, both under his or her contract of hire and in fact;
B. The individual’s service must be performed either outside the usual course of business of the employer or outside all the employer’s places of business; and
C. The individual must be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as the service performed
In the Standard Oil case, the employer is challenging the findings on various elements of this test. One of them – Part B , the “places of business” — is potentially far-reaching, according to the briefs filed in the case. The issue is whether the customers’ homes are “places of business”; if they are, then the consultant cannot be said to be performing services “outside” the employer’s places of business. The employer argued that viewing customers’ homes as places of business “does nothing to further the Act’s purpose and its practical implications are damning to Connecticut industry….”
Indeed, the employer argues that “it will be impossible for [the employer]-or any Connecticut business–to ever utilize the services of an independent contractor.”Continue Reading The Real Battle over Independent Contractors and the ABC Test In Connecticut
Can an employee work for more than one employer at the same time? Under a theory of law called “joint employment”, the answer is yes.
But how do you make that determination?
Suppose a private bus company provides services all over Connecticut. It’s largest customer happens to be a very large private university in the
It’s Baseball Season; a time for the Sox to come out and play.
Not the Red Sox — this is, after all, a legal blog (run by a Yankees fan, no less). No, today, we’re talking about Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Whistleblower Protection.
Still with us.
My colleague, Clarisse Thomas, has taken a look back at the