FedEx Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision in the FedEx case concluded that drivers are employees, not contractors. Their agreement supports the decisions of many other jurisdictions to date.

The ruling was directly related to the FedEx drivers in the Connecticut terminal of a FedEx ground package Systems Inc. unit. The ruling by the National Labor Relations Board that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors was founded on a wide range of factors that all favored employee status.

A four-member panel ruled over one dissenting vote that FedEx Home Delivery was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act in its refusal to recognize a union and appropriately bargain when they sought to represent the drivers. A closer examination of the relationship between the drivers’ and FedEx made it clear to the board that the drivers fit the criteria of classification as employees.

Traditionally, courts and governing agencies have utilized the now familiar “multi-factor” common law test in order to differentiate between workers who should legally be designated as employees and those who should be designed at independent contractors. Over time a new trend has gradually emerged in which the focus has shifted to include and some might argue, focus on, one single factor: who has control over the individual’s work. It has become apparent that this focus does not always rely on the use of power over the individual’s work, but simply the existence of the possibility to exert power/control over the individual’s work even if it hasn’t been invoked.

If you are unsure of your appropriate classification on the job and fear that you may be being denied benefits through misclassification as an independent contractor, contact the experts in employment law at southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Labor Law: Governor Brown’s New Law

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 1897, creating new Labor Code section 2810.3. The new labor code section created by the Assembly Bill applies to almost all companies with 25+ employees that obtain or receive workers to complete work through the “usual course of business” from other businesses that provide workers (otherwise known as labor contractors). The new law makes such companies liable for three things:

• Payment to contractor’s employees
• Any contractor’s failure to secure appropriate workers’ compensation coverage as required
• Compliant actions regarding occupational health and safety requirements (OSHA) in place

Companies will now have a new statutory liability. The legal contraction of labor services in regards to the new Labor Code section isn’t related to the required finding of joint/co-employment or any type of control over working conditions, the method of payment, scheduling of work hours, or the overall work site environment. Under the new law, each company is liable even if they can exhibit proof that they were not aware of violations that existed or occurred.

The new labor code law applies to workers who are completing their job in the normal course of business on site. California employees who are exempt from overtime (i.e. executive, administrative and professional employees) are excluded from the new law’s reach. There are also a few exemptions from the definition of a “client employer” who is covered under the new law: companies with fewer than 25 workers, companies who use 5 or less labor contract workers at any given time, state organizations, homeowners and home-based businesses who receive labor contract services in their homes, and companies providing transportation services. Additional limited exemptions in relation to non-profit, community organizations, unions, apprenticeship programs, motor club services, cable operators, telephone corporations, etc.

The new law will be effective as of January 1, 2015. For additional information regarding exceptions and exclusions of the new labor law, contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

When Independent Contractors are Actually Employees

Sometimes it’s difficult to know if you are an employee or an independent contractor. Even more often it’s hard to know if you actually en employee even though you’re called an independent contractor. If you’re not sure, you might be one of the many who are “employees” in everything but title.

You might be an “employee” if you:

• Work for ONLY one company
• Put in very long hours
• Are under close supervision 

Why should you care if you are classified as an employee or as an independent contractor?

1. Independent contractors pay self-employment taxes.

2. Independent contractors do not qualify for state unemployment relief if they are let go or not “renewed.”

3. Independent contractors are not eligible for employer-paid benefits.

The IRS has a multipart test in place that has to be met in order to qualify for legitimate independent contractor status. If it is determined that an employer has been misclassifying employees as independent contractors according to the multipart test, employers may be subject to penalties assessed for back employment taxes and/or overtime wages for workers.

In recent news, the FedEx drivers in California and Oregon, that were considered independent contractors by the company, were dubbed employees by the court. Now there are drivers for both Uber and Lyft car-sharing services (popular in southern California urban areas) that are also challenging their independent-contractor status.

This isn’t an issue that is likely to go away any time soon. Many businesses tend to push the limits on legal definitions in order to keep labor costs low, and avoid passing official employee count thresholds that can trigger additional coverage requirements and programs (such as family leave and health care).

That’s not to say that being an independent contractor is a bad thing. Independent contracting has a lot of benefits for both the employer and the contractor. A lot of workers enjoy the freedom is can offer. They can set their own hours and the pace of their work. They can work for a variety of different clients. They can deduct their own business expenses from their income. But the problem comes when a worker is hired as an “independent contractor” and then treated like an employee. This set up takes all the benefits out of the arrangement on the side of the worker leaving the employer with all the “good” cards.

If you suspect that you might be misclassified as an independent contractor, contact an expert in southern California employment law as soon as possible at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Exempt and Non-Exempt California Employees Affected by Increase in California’s Minimum Wage

On July 1, 2014, California raised its minimum wage from $8/hour to $9/hour. Both non-exempt and exempt salaried employees will be affected. An additional increase to $10/hour will take effect on January 1, 2016. Some employers view the change as inconsequential as they already have to meet local minimum wage requirements for their non-exempt employees, but there will in fact be a noticeable impact because the change applies to exempt status employees and commissioned inside sales employees.

To understand the potential changes the increase in minimum wage could have for exempt employees you must first consider the requirements for the exempt status. In order to be classified as exempt, an employee must meet certain requirements regarding the type of work they are performing. In addition, they must meet the minimum salary test. California law requires that all employees classified as exempt earn a monthly salary that is at least twice the minimum required by the state for a full time employee (working 40 hours per week). ) Prior to the increase in California’s minimum wage, this left the minimum monthly salary for a full time, exempt employee at $33,280. The change that took effect on July 1, 2014 bumps it up to $37,440. By 2016, this number will be even higher, bringing exempt employees’ minimum salary to $41,600 per year in order to meet the minimum salary test. 

In regard to commissioned inside sales employees, the new California minimum wage applies to overtime pay. California law dictates that an inside salesperson is exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than 1.5 times the state minimum wage and more than half of their income is commission pay. After July 1, 2014, an inside sales person must earn at least $13.51 per hour in order to be exempt from overtime pay. With the arrival of 2016, these employees will need to be making at least $15.01 per hour in order to retain exempt status.

Employers who disregard of delay the necessary adjustment of applicable employee pay rates and exemption statuses could face costly penalties and interest on back pay due employees, possible overtime premium pay (as a result of the loss of exempt status for some workers) and more. If you have questions regarding how the change to minimum wage law may apply to you, get in touch with Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

California Labor Lawsuit Led to Class Action v. Barnes & Noble

A class action suit against Barnes & Noble based out of New York has roots in California. The California labor lawsuit will continue – a New York judge refused to grant summary judgment for the defendants. Barnes & Noble, the major chain and online bookseller, is being accused of avoiding the payment of overtime to employees by purposefully misclassifying them as exempt. Allegations would leave Barnes & Noble in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Court documents indicate that until 2005, Barnes & Noble classified all assistant store managers as FLSA exempt. This meant that no assistant store managers were eligible for overtime pay on hours worked above and beyond the standard workweek or workday. Generally speaking, managers (who are paid a salary and perform managerial tasks) are properly exempt in just this fashion. However, Barnes & Noble assistant store managers in California filed suit citing violations of California labor law.

The assistant store managers who filed suit in this California case made allegations that they performed tasks that fell outside of the managerial realm. They also indicated that despite their official title (assistant store manager) they had no actual authority over other employees.

The lawsuit resulted in Barnes & Noble reclassifying its assistant store managers in California as nonexempt. As nonexempt employees, they can now qualify for overtime pay. But Barnes & Noble apparently did not make the change at other stores in other locations throughout the country until a much later date.

Barnes & Noble did eventually (in 2010) reclassify all of its assistant managers as nonexempt throughout the states. This was the basis for Barnes & Noble’s petition for summary judgment in the lawsuit (originally brought in 2005 as an action citing California labor code). It would seem that the FLSA violations ended in June 2010, but the wider lawsuit was filed in January 2013. The defendants cited that the lawsuit fell outside the FLSA’s two-year statue of limitations.  

US District Court Judge John Koeltl disagreed, pointing out that the FLSA two-year limit extends to three years when there is proof, evidence or suspicion that there was a willful violation. Considering that Barnes & Noble reclassified California based assistant managers as a result of the California labor lawsuit, but failed to do so nationwide for 5 years, it would be easy to suggest that there was at least some evidence that a jury could perceive as willful violation.  

The three plaintiffs (named) in the current, New York based lawsuit, are all former assistant store managers for Barnes & Noble. They note that their duties were not limited to managerial duties, they often performed tasks performed by other non-exempt employees, such as working the cash register, processing product returns, etc.

If you feel you have been misclassified as an exempt employee, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

California Supreme Court and Questions Defining “Employers” Liable for Wage Violations

Ramifications of Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers could result in changes for California workers. The California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a Court of Appeal decision that reversed the denial of class certification in the independent contractor misclassification case. Judge Werdegar, Justice Baxter and Justice Chin all concurred that the Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial court decision that denied certification in the case of Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers. In the case, Newspaper delivery workers filed against a daily newspaper. They were classified as independent contractors and as such, were denied minimum wage payment, overtime pay, minimum rest and meal period premiums, as well as employer contributions toward Social Security.

The trial court held that there were too many individual inquiries necessary in order to determine how the various newspaper delivery workers handled their day to day operations, but the Supreme Court felt that the trial court missed the point of the case: whether a common law employer/employee relationship exists dependent upon the degree of the hirer’s right to define/control the relationship or how the end result is actually achieved. The Supreme Court further explained their decision by pointing out that while there was evidence of variation in work habits between newspaper carriers, which supports claims made by Antelope Valley’s position that they didn’t control their carriers’ work, this fact didn’t negate the actual question at hand. How much right does the employer (Antelope Valley) have to control what their carriers’ do?

This case reinforces the common proof method that turns to governing contracts: a common method used to determine the answer to the independent contractor vs. employee question. The Court has pointed out that at the certification stage, the form contract’s importance is not particularly in what it says, but in what degree of control it defines and whether it is uniform across the class.

Countless California workers are misclassified as independent contractors even though their employers retain control of their working conditions. If you are one of these California workers and you’d like to join with fellow workers to address the issue of misclassification claims, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. There’s precedence in the legal system that empowers you to raise your wage claim.

Ninth Circuit Clarifies with Recent Ruling: Delivery Drivers are Employees Not Independent Contractors

Plaintiffs in Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation performed delivery services in California for the defendant under contracts binding the drivers as independent contractors and governed by Georgia law. The putative class action asserted that under California law drivers should have been paid sick leave as well as other employment benefits, but because they were wrongfully classified, they were denied the benefits. Originally, the district court applied Georgia law and found in favor of the defendant due to the classification of the drivers as independent contractors. The drivers appealed.

The first appeal in 2012 resulted in the Court of Appeals disregarding the contract’s provision stating the employer/employee relationship would be handled according to Georgia law. Instead they applied California law to the disputes as they found Georgia law to be too favorable to the employer. The case was then remanded for application of California law. The district court again entered judgment in favor of the employer, and again, the plaintiffs appealed.

On June 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit gave a different ruling. The ruling stated that despite the contract terms, delivery drivers were employees under California law and were not independent contractors. (This finding was in spite of the fact that all the drivers had independent contractor agreements, formed their own corporate entities, paid for their own vehicles, and hired their own help as needed. The ruling found that the drivers were wrongfully classified under California Law as independent contractors due to the employer’s right to heavily control their work regardless of the titles of the parties involved or how the employee/employer relationship was described. Some of the specific instances cited as “heavy control of work” included: tight control over driver routes and schedules, 100% adherence requirements to the detailed procedure manual, vacation policies (and other similar policies) indicative of employment, use of the drivers’ leased trucks by other drivers without additional compensation, required daily meetings, uniforms, inspections, monitoring of routes (real time), etc.

The case reminds us that merely stating that a relationship is that of an independent contractor is not enough when the relationship itself exhibits signs of an actual employee/employer relationship. It is prudent for companies to remember that the courts will not hesitate to rule that independent contractors should have been classified as employees if the actual working relationship defies what is agreed on paper.

For more information on differentiating between an independent contractor and an employee contact your Southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.