By Jeffrey W. Brecher, Principal (631-247-4652) with Jackson Lewis P.C.; Justin R. Barnes, Principal (404-586-1809) with Jackson Lewis P.C.; Adam L. Lounsbury, Principal (804-212-2863) with Jackson Lewis P.C. 

 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has announced its intention to issue a new final rule regarding the employee-vs-independent contractor analysis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That announcement came by way of a June 3, 2022, blog post from Jessica Looman, Acting Director of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.  

The current Independent Contractor (IC) Final Rule, issued during the previous administration and set to go into effect in March 2021, initially was delayed and then ultimately was withdrawn by the DOL in May 2021. However, in March 2022, a federal court in Texas held that the DOL’s delay, and withdrawal was unlawful, and that the current Final Rule has been in effect since its original March 2021 date. The DOL recently appealed that ruling, and the appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

Over the years, both the courts and the DOL had developed similar, yet somewhat varying, standards for determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor, most of which focused on the “economic reality” of the relationship between the employer and the individual.  

Those standards were derived from six, non-exclusive factors originally presented by the Supreme Court in two cases decided on the same day, United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), and Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947). The factors are: 

• The employer’s versus the individual’s degree of control over the work; 

• The individual’s opportunity for profit or loss; 

• The individual’s investment in facilities and equipment; 

• The permanency of the relationship between the parties; 

• The skill or expertise required by the individual; and 

• Whether the work is “part of an integrated unit of production.” 

Rather than treat the analytical factors as unweighted or affording them equal weight, the IC Final Rule elevates the comparative value of two “core” factors: “the nature and degree of the individual’s control over the work” and “the individual’s opportunity for profit or loss.” According to the IC Final Rule, when both of these factors support, or contradict, the existence of an independent contractor relationship, courts routinely have relied on them as controlling the determination.  

The IC Final Rule states that these factors are the “most probative” and therefore should be “afforded greater weight.” However, if these two factors are inconclusive, then three other factors should be considered: the skill or expertise required by the individual; the permanency of the relationship between the parties; and whether the work is “part of an integrated unit of production.” 

The current DOL concluded that the IC Final Rule’s assignment of greater weight to two of the factors was inconsistent with the purposes and text of the FLSA and sought, ultimately unsuccessfully, to withdraw the Final Rule. Now, stating that it “remain[s] committed to ensuring that employees are recognized correctly when they are, in fact, employees so that they receive the protections the FLSA provides[,]” while “recogniz[ing] the important role legitimate independent contractors play in our economy,” the DOL has announced public forums in late June 2022 for both employers and employees to express their views on the independent contractor analysis, prior to the Department proceeding with the formal rulemaking process. 

However, should the DOL eventually publish a new final rule, it would apply only to the analysis under federal law and would not affect how states (e.g., California) determine who qualifies as an independent contractor under their statutes. Moreover, just as with the current IC Final Rule, a new final rule would not redefine who qualifies as an independent contractor under the Internal Revenue Code, the National Labor Relations Act, or other federal laws.  

 

If you would like to learn more about how to safely outsource compliance and HR functions, contact us. 

 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (“FIRM”) PROVIDES THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST FOR GENERAL INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS POST SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON OR REGARDED AS, LEGAL ADVICE. NO ONE ACCESSING OR REVIEWING THIS POST, WHETHER OR NOT A CURRENT CLIENT OF THE FIRM, SHOULD ACT OR REFRAIN FROM ACTING ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONTENT OR INFORMATION, WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH AND ENGAGING A QUALIFIED, LICENSED ATTORNEY, AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW IN SUCH PERSON’S PARTICULAR STATE, CONCERNING THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER AT ISSUE. THE POST MAY NOT REFLECT CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, OR LAWS OR RULES THAT MAY APPLY IN PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS. THE FIRM AND ITS LAWYERS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BASED ON ANY OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OR INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THIS SITE. ANY INFORMATION ABOUT PRIOR RESULTS ATTAINED BY THE FIRM OR ITS LAWYERS IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY THAT A SIMILAR OUTCOME WILL BE ACHIEVED. 

THE FIRM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT, OPERATION, LINKS OR TRANSMISSIONS, OR ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON ANY OTHER PART OF ASURE SOFTWARE, INC.’S WEBSITE OR ANY THIRD-PARTY WEBSITE WHICH MAY BE ACCESSED BY A LINK FROM THIS WEBSITE. 

NOTHING PROVIDED BY THE FIRM IS INTENDED TO FORM, AND WILL NOT CREATE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  

THIS POST MAY BE CONSIDERED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING UNDER THE RULES OF SOME STATES. THE HIRING OF AN ATTORNEY IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION THAT SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS. 

STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES, LAWYERS RESIDENT IN THE FIRM’S VARIOUS OFFICES ARE NOT CERTIFIED BY THE TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION.