Whatever happened to summer vacation? You remember, that downtime, when nothing much happened?
First, there were new proposed OT rules. Then, word came out EARLY (I got an alert at 6a!) today that the U.S. Department of Labor issued new “guidance” that will try to limit the misclassification of employees as indpendent contractors.
The goal is nothing less than ensuring that most of these workers qualify as employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
In sum, most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions… The very broad definition of employment under the FLSA as ‘to suffer or permit to work’ and the act’s intended expansive coverage for workers must be considered when applying the economic realities factors to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
It states elsewhere:
This Administrator’s Interpretation first discusses the pertinent FLSA definitions and the breadth of employment relationships covered by the FLSA. When determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the application of the economic realities factors should be guided by the FLSA’s statutory directive that the scope of the employment relationship is very broad. This Administrator’s Interpretation then addresses each of the factors, providing citations to case law and examples. All of the factors must be considered in each case, and no one factor (particularly the control factor) is determinative of whether a worker is an employee. Moreover, the factors themselves should not be applied in a mechanical fashion, but with an understanding that the factors are indicators of the broader concept of economic dependence. Ultimately, the goal is not simply to tally which factors are met, but to determine whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer (and thus its employee) or is really in business for him or herself (and thus its independent contractor). The factors are a guide to make this ultimate determination of economic dependence or independence.
I’ve talked about the economic realities test before. This not a new issue.
In fact, the USDOL had a fact sheet in 2014 stating almost the exact same thing.
But the USDOL’s new “interpretation” is certainly going to force employers to take a new look at their relationships to determine whether independent contractors should be better classified as employees. And it’s going to raise some questions on enforcement as well.
So, to remind you, what are those factors under the “economic realities” test?
- Is the work an integral part of the employer’s business?
- Does the worker’s managerial skill affect the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss?
- How does the worker’s relative investment compare to the employer’s investment?
- Does the work performed require special skill and initiative?
- Is the relationship between the worker and the employer permanent or indefinite?
- What is the nature and degree of the employer’s control?
But, and here’s where we all need to take a deep breath, this type of analysis isn’t all that new or surprising. Courts have been using it for a while. And it shouldn’t cause you to drop everything you’re doing today to look at this.
In fact, if you’re in Connecticut, I would actually suggest taking an even deeper breath because the issue is even more complicated than that.
There is a case now pending at the Connecticut Supreme Court — Standard Oil of Connecticut v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, that is examining whether certain contractors are “employees” under a different test — the ABC Test, and the proper application of that test under Connecticut’s own misclassification laws).
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
Yes, in addition to the USDOL’s “Economic Realities” test, the Connecticut Department of Labor uses a different test for unemployment compensation purposes named the “ABC” test.
And don’t even get me started on the IRS’s “20 factor” test.
Are you in your happy place yet?
Maybe it’s time for that vacation after all.
Or, if you’re an employer, just take this latest news in stride. If you have independent contractors, the guidance is really just another reminder that the use of these contractors continues to be heavily disfavored by government agencies.
But if you’ve been reading this blog (see this post, for example, from 2010), you’ve known that, right?