Administrative guidance on independent contractor status
Administrative Guidance on Independent Contractor Status
Independent contractor status versus employee status is a critical distinction in labor and employment law, affecting everything from wage and hour rules to tax obligations and eligibility for benefits.
Why Does Independent Contractor Status Matter?
Employees have protections under laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and others.
Independent contractors generally do not receive such protections and are responsible for their own taxes, benefits, and insurance.
Administrative Guidance:
Agencies like the Department of Labor (DOL), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provide guidance on how to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.
The core test agencies use is control and independence, focusing on:
Behavioral control: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how?
Financial control: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the employer? (e.g., how the worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed)
Relationship type: Are there written contracts, employee-type benefits, permanency of the relationship, and whether the work performed is integral to the employer’s business?
Key Case Law on Independent Contractor Status
1. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)
Summary:
This landmark Supreme Court case set a precedent for evaluating independent contractor status under the Copyright Act, but its analysis applies broadly.
The Court developed a multi-factor test focusing on the right to control the manner and means of the work.
Key Factors Considered:
Skill required.
Source of the instrumentalities and tools.
Location of work.
Duration of the relationship.
Right to assign additional projects.
Extent of the hired party’s discretion.
Method of payment.
Role in hiring and paying assistants.
Whether the work is part of the regular business.
Relationship with the principal.
Significance:
This case emphasized the right to control as the most important factor and established a multi-factor balancing test still widely used.
2. United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947)
Summary:
This Supreme Court case examined whether workers were employees under the Social Security Act.
The Court rejected rigid definitions and adopted a broad "economic realities" test.
Key Points:
The worker’s dependence on the business and economic reality mattered more than formal titles.
Focus on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or in business for themselves.
Significance:
The “economic realities” test became a cornerstone for determining employment status in wage and hour law.
3. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018)
Summary:
California Supreme Court created the “ABC Test” to classify workers for wage orders.
To be an independent contractor, the employer must prove:
A) The worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with the work performed.
B) The worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
C) The worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
Significance:
This strict test shifts the burden to the employer.
It has been influential in legislative changes (e.g., California’s AB5 law) and administrative guidance nationwide.
4. NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254 (1968)
Summary:
The Supreme Court reviewed an NLRB decision on whether sales agents were employees under the NLRA.
The Court applied the right-to-control test, emphasizing economic dependence and the nature of the work relationship.
Significance:
Confirmed the NLRA’s broad definition of employee status to protect collective bargaining rights.
Highlighted the role of agency interpretation in defining employment status.
5. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)
Summary:
Supreme Court examined the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) definition of employee.
The Court used the traditional common law agency test focusing on control, supervision, and other factors.
Significance:
Affirmed that courts should use a holistic common law test.
Highlighted variability across statutes, depending on their definitions and purposes.
6. Administrative Guidance Example – DOL’s 2021 Independent Contractor Rule
The DOL issued a rule emphasizing a “totality of the circumstances” approach.
Key factors included:
The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.
The nature and degree of the worker’s investment in facilities.
The permanence of the working relationship.
Whether the services are integral to the employer’s business.
However, this rule was vacated in 2022, showing the continued evolution and controversy in this area.
Summary of Common Tests & Factors in Administrative and Judicial Review
| Test/Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Right to Control | Degree of employer control over work details and manner of performance. |
| Economic Realities Test | Whether worker is economically dependent or in business for themselves. |
| ABC Test | (California) Employer must prove all 3 factors to classify as contractor. |
| Common Law Agency Test | Multi-factor balancing test considering control, skill, payment, and relationship. |
| Permanency & Integration | Length and nature of relationship; whether the worker’s tasks are integral. |
Conclusion
Administrative guidance and case law emphasize a fact-intensive, multi-factor analysis rather than a single determinant to establish independent contractor status. Courts and agencies look closely at control, economic dependence, and the nature of the work relationship. The stakes are high because misclassification can result in significant liability for employers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments