DOL rules on gig economy classification
DOL Rules on Gig Economy Classification: Overview
The gig economy includes workers who provide services on a flexible, often short-term basis, typically through digital platforms like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and others.
The classification of these workers—as employees or independent contractors—is crucial because it determines:
Eligibility for minimum wage, overtime, and other protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Employer responsibilities regarding tax withholding and benefits,
Collective bargaining rights.
The DOL has issued guidance and rules to clarify the standard for classification, but the rules have shifted across different administrations. Meanwhile, courts have developed tests for worker classification.
DOL’s Tests and Guidance
1. Economic Realities Test (Traditional DOL Approach)
Focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or in business for themselves.
Factors include:
The degree of control the employer exercises,
The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss,
The worker’s investment in equipment or materials,
Whether the work performed is integral to the employer’s business,
The permanency of the relationship,
The skill and initiative required.
2. 2019 Proposed Rule (Trump Administration)
Narrowed the definition of employee under FLSA.
Emphasized control as the primary factor.
Intended to make it easier for employers to classify gig workers as independent contractors.
3. 2021 Biden Administration Actions
Reversed the 2019 rule.
Returned to a more expansive economic realities test.
Focus on protecting worker rights amid gig economy growth.
Key Case Laws on Gig Economy Worker Classification
1. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018)
Facts:
California Supreme Court adopted the “ABC test” for determining employee status under California wage laws. The case involved Dynamex, a courier company.
Held:
The court held that a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity proves:
(A) The worker is free from control and direction,
(B) The work is outside the usual course of business,
(C) The worker is engaged in an independently established trade.
Explanation:
This test is stricter than the DOL’s economic realities test.
Has influenced debates about gig worker classification nationwide.
Led to California’s AB5 law, significantly impacting gig workers.
2. FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 968 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2020)
Facts:
FedEx drivers classified as independent contractors challenged by NLRB, arguing they were employees.
Held:
The court upheld NLRB’s ruling that the drivers were employees entitled to collective bargaining rights.
Explanation:
Courts consider the economic realities and control in classification.
Reinforced worker protections even where contracts label workers as independent.
3. O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 82 F.Supp.3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
Facts:
Uber drivers sued claiming they should be classified as employees.
Held:
The court found Uber drivers to be independent contractors, emphasizing driver flexibility and lack of employer control.
Explanation:
Demonstrates courts may side with gig companies under traditional tests,
But subsequent cases and legislation challenge this trend.
4. Massachusetts Delivery Ass’n v. Attorney General, 485 Mass. 89 (2020)
Facts:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted a version of the ABC test under state law for delivery workers.
Held:
Workers are presumed employees unless all ABC criteria are met.
Explanation:
Shows trend toward stricter employee definitions for gig workers.
Aligns with California’s approach.
5. Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, 13 F.4th 766 (9th Cir. 2021)
Facts:
Challenge to California’s AB5 law that applies the ABC test to gig workers.
Held:
The court upheld most of AB5, affirming state authority to regulate gig worker classification.
Explanation:
Validates stricter classification standards at state level.
Highlights ongoing tension between state regulation and gig companies.
6. DOL Opinion Letter, FLSA2018-27 (2018)
Facts:
The DOL provided guidance on applying the economic realities test to gig workers.
Held:
The letter emphasized the importance of control and economic dependence.
Explanation:
Reflects DOL’s more worker-protective stance before 2019 rule,
Highlights administrative attempts to clarify classification standards.
Summary Table
| Case/Guidance | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Dynamex v. Superior Court | 2018 | Adopted strict ABC test for employee classification |
| FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB | 2020 | NLRB and courts uphold employee status despite contractor labels |
| O’Connor v. Uber | 2015 | Recognized gig drivers as independent contractors under certain facts |
| Massachusetts Delivery Ass’n | 2020 | ABC test applied at state level for gig worker classification |
| Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta | 2021 | Upheld California’s AB5 law regulating gig worker classification |
| DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2018-27 | 2018 | Emphasized economic realities test and worker dependence |
Conclusion
The classification of gig economy workers remains a complex and evolving issue. The DOL’s rules and guidance have oscillated between more employer-friendly and more worker-protective standards, reflecting political and economic pressures.
Meanwhile, courts—especially at the state level—are increasingly applying stricter tests like the ABC test to extend employee protections to gig workers. Federal courts and the DOL continue to apply the economic realities test, but with growing recognition of the gig economy’s unique challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments