May 23, 2012

DOL and State of California Target Independent Contractor Classifications; 9th Circuit Provides More Ammunition

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the California Labor Commissioner jointly announced that the DOL's Wage and Hour Division and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), regarding the "improper classification" of workers as independent contractors.  The MOU purports to seek "to protect the rights of employees and level the playing field for responsible employers by reducing the practice conducted by some businesses of misclassifying employees."

The MOU with California is the 12th such memorandum for the DOL, with Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Utah and Washington previously having entered into similar agreements. Independent contractor classification has come under attack for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inapplicability of various labor and employment laws to independent contractors. While the MOU doesn't permit or bind either agency to any additional expenditures, the agencies have agreed to exchange information as practicable and when possible and to assist each other's outreach and education efforts. 

The MOU was announced just one day after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation, vacating a lower court's ruling that a group of employees were properly classified as independent contractors. In Affinity Logistics, the District Court had given effect to a contractual choice of law provision and applied Georgia law which contains a presumption of independent contractor status. California law, contrary to Georgia law, presumes employee/employer status and places the burden of proof on the party alleging independent contractor status. The 9th Circuit, however, disagreed with the District Court's resolution of the choice of law question, finding that California law should apply notwithstanding the parties' contractual selection of Georgia law, because the Georgia law conflicts with what the 9th Circuit found was a fundamental California public policy. The 9th Circuit based its decision on its determination that California had a greater interest than Georgia in the outcome of the case because the work at issue was done in California. While the 9th Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to reexamine the independent contractor issue, the decision underscores that it is becoming more difficult for companies to have independent contractor arrangements in California affirmed by the courts.

The Affinity Logistics decision and the signing of the MOU, in combination with recently enacted California Legislation increasing the penalties for misclassifying employees previously discussed in our blogs and alerts, are strong reminders that classifying workers as independent contractors, especially in California, is a decision that should be discussed with experienced counsel.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Barnes & Thornburg’s Labor and Employment Law Department is one of the fastest-growing labor groups in the nation. Two qualities set us apart: Our passion for what we do, and the pride we take in helping clients achieve their business goals. To succeed in the competitive global marketplace, our clients must not only meet but exceed their customers’ expectations. We share this objective, offering superior service, innovative ideas and an understanding of the challenges our clients face.

Our Services
The Labor and Employment Law group offers comprehensive...

317-231-7513

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.