Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- remote work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- work from home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- copyright
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Intellectual Property
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pension Plans
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- United States v. Windsor
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Play or Pay
- posting requirements
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- tax refund
- Telecommuting
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Crisis Management
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Showing 9 posts in Independent Contractors.
Here We Go Again: New DOL Independent Contractor Rule In Effect
In the continuing tug of war that has taken place with recent successive presidential administrations, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) on January 10th, 2024, published a new final rule to once again define “independent contractor” for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The new rule adopts a six-factor test to determine the “economic reality” of the relationship between the worker and the potential employer. It went into effect on March 11th. More >
NLRB Gets Back in the Time Machine, Reverts to Previous Independent Contractor Test
It’s 2023: do you know who your employees are? If you think you do, think again: the National Labor Relations Board announced in a June 13th decision on the case The Atlanta Opera, Inc., that it is changing its test for determining which workers are independent contractors and which are covered employees, reverting once again to an Obama-era standard. For employers, this means that the potential for running into issues with misclassification and unionization has increased significantly. More >
Is Your Independent Contractor Really An Employee?
Employers may choose to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees for several reasons. Some seek to avoid employment tax, workers compensation costs, and overtime wage rates. Some hope to steer clear of employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Others simply look to independent contractors because they provide a more flexible and less permanent workforce than traditional employees. More >
Surprise! That Independent Contractor is an Employee!
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has given employers some bitter pills to swallow lately, especially in light of the proposed rule concerning new restrictions on the white collar overtime exemption. With a new set of guidance on the classification of independent contractors, the streak of DOL heartburn for employers continues unabated. More >
Employees vs. Independent Contractors: The Consequences of Misclassification
The distinction between independent contractors and employees carries more burdens, consequences, and decisions than ever before. In addition to the tax consequences, there are health care compliance consequences, workers’ compensation consequences, and even intellectual property consequences. Understanding the consequences of misclassification is paramount to properly structure an employer’s workforce. More >
Who Owns What When a Copyrighted Work is Created in the Workplace
Something employers, employees and contractors don’t often consider is the ownership and attribution of copyrighted property created for an employer on behalf of an employee. Copyright has value, so the ownership of it might sometimes come into dispute. Clear agreements as to the ownership and attribution of intellectual property provide insight – i.e., any works created by an author as a result of the course and scope of that author’s employment with a company are company property. What happens, however, when a clear agreement isn’t in place? Who owns the intellectual property then? More >
Worker Classification Tests -- When One Isn’t Enough: Troyer v. T.John.E Productions, cont.
On Monday, we discussed the Troyer v. T.John.E Productions, Inc. case. The outcome of that case hinged on whether the plaintiff workers were “employees” or “independent contractors.” The IRS had previously issued SS-8 determination letters to the employers, wherein it was determined the plaintiffs were, in fact, “employees” under the 20-factor IRS guidelines. One might think that the IRS classification would result in a judgment for the plaintiffs. The court, however, thought otherwise. More >
https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-Employment-Law-Blog,consequences-of-misclassifying-workers-as-independent-contractors
Classifying a worker as either an independent contractor or an employee is an important distinction. Taxes, pay, benefits, and whether the worker is protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are all dependent on the classification a worker receives. Generally, independent contractors are owed fewer obligations than employees and, thus, the independent contractor label is often favored. However, misclassification may result in legal action and the possibility of significant consequences (see a post on the consequences here). Making the distinction is not always easy and usually requires a fact-specific analysis. Sometimes, workers may even be evaluated under different standards, depending on which government agency or type of action is involved. Case in point: Troyer v. T.John.E Productions, Inc., from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.[1] More >
CONSEQUENCES OF MISCLASSIFYING WORKERS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Over the past several years, more and more employers are attempting to cut costs by hiring individuals as independent contractors as opposed to employees. This trend, however, has caught the attention of the Federal Department of Labor, which this year has again increased its budget to “detect and deter” misclassification of workers as independent contractors. This budget also includes the addition of dozens of new full time employees dedicated to investigate possible violations resulting from misclassification. More >
