California Appellate Court Holds Insurance Agents Not Employees Under California Law
.jpg)
In Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, a California appellate court issued a published decision holding that insurance agents are not employees under the California Labor Code. This appears to be the first time the court has addressed the status of insurance agents.
The plaintiff filed a putative class action asserting that she was misclassified as an independent contractor and therefore denied reimbursement of business related expenses under Labor Code section 2802, and was not paid all wages in a timely fashion. She also asserted that failure to pay business expenses constituted an unfair business practice.
Continue Reading...
On January 20, 2011, the Governor of Maine, Paul R. LePage, 
On October 13, 2010, Governor Rendell signed into law the .jpg)
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) have introduced a bill that would curtail the use of a federal “safe harbor” that allows businesses to treat workers as independent contractors for federal employment tax purposes, regardless of the employee’s actual status under the common law test. The Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 (pdf) (H.R. 6128, S. 3786) would, among other things, require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue prospective guidance on worker classification for federal employment tax purposes. The safe harbor provided under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 would continue to be available until the date an individual’s employment status is reclassified. The worker’s reclassification date would be the earlier of (a) the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning more than 180 days after the date of an employee classification determination by the Secretary of the Treasury; or (b) the effective date of the “first application final regulation” issued by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to such individual (or if later, the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning more than 180 days after such regulation is issued). To learn more about the bill and its potential implications for employers, please .jpg)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a Texas corporation’s argument that drivers who performed services for the company were independent contractors—and therefore not subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code—because their contracts with the company contained a Texas choice of law provision. In 
On May 12, 2010, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed into law two pieces of legislation regarding the misclassification of employees. 
On May 5, 2010, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell signed into law ".jpg)
Legislation introduced in both the House and Senate would impose new record-keeping requirements on employers that hire independent contractors, and impose stricter penalties for misclassification. Introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (H.R. 5107, S. 3254) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers to keep records on and notify workers of their employment or independent contractor classification and their right to challenge that classification. For more information on the legislation and its implications for employers, continue reading at Littler's 
The fiscal year 2011 federal 
On August 21, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that a worker who has been misclassified as an independent contractor may seek damages from his former employer even if the employer establishes that the worker would have been paid less had he been classified as an employee.