Over on my firm’s sister blog, the Employment Law Letter, my colleagues have a post this week about the issuance of final rule on Independent Contractors by the United States Department of Labor.
As they note, the Final Rule establishes “a six-factor test based on the economic reality of the worker and potential
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
Among the employment law questions that most people ask, I can tell you that “Are strippers independent contractors or employees?” isn’t one of them.
And yet, having posed the question, isn’t there something about it that demands an answer? After all, the employment laws we have should apply to everyone, right?
Employers who want to (or need to) use independent contractors often scratch their heads at a disconnect – how do you determine who is an independent contractor? I recall at one speaking engagement years ago, an employer who came up to me and asked: “So are you saying that there are TWO tests to determining
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
As I return from some time off, my colleagues, Gary Starr and Chris Engler, have dug a bit deeper into the Connecticut Supreme Court decision from last week and issued this alert which we have also sent to clients.
A deeply divided Connecticut Supreme Court recently issued a long-awaited decision, Standard Oil v. Administrator
Late this morning, the Connecticut Supreme Court released one of its most important decisions on employment law in years. I’ve been talking about it prior posts but its decision is a welcome surprise for employers who feared the worst.
Because I’m out of the office for a few days, I’ve asked my colleague Chris Engler
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
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