Menu

DOL Guidance Suggests Many Independent Contractors are Misclassified and Should be Covered by The FLSA

Consumer Finance   |   Labor & Employment   |   Real Estate   |   Securities and Derivative Litigation   |   Technology   |   Telecommunications   |   July 20, 2015
Download   
Share Page

On Computer

On July 15, the Department of Labor’s Wage Hour Division (WHD) issued guidance on how to identify employees who are misclassified as independent contractors. In a 15-page administrator’s interpretation (AI), WHD head David Weil addressed what the Department of Labor (DOL) perceives as a “serious problem” regarding the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and explained that most workers qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s broad definition of employment.

The AI emphasized that the key inquiry in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA is whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or is in business for him or herself. If the worker is economically dependent on the employer, then the worker is an employee. If the worker is in business for him or herself (i.e., economically independent from the employer), then the worker is an independent contractor.

The AI made clear that a multi-factor “economic realities” test should be used to guide the classification assessment. These factors typically include:

  • the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business;
  • the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
  • the extent of the relative investments of the employer and the worker;
  • whether the work performed requires special skill and initiative;
  • the permanency of the relationship; and
  • the degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.

The guidance points out that all of the factors have equal weight and should not be “analyzed mechanically or in a vacuum.” While the economic realities test is not new, the DOL’s emphasis on all factors having equal weight can be deemed a definitive shift in the way it applies the test.

Although the DOL’s AI was not published following a formal rulemaking process and is technically nonbinding, a recent Supreme Court decision suggests that courts can give it deference. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, the Supreme Court held that agencies do not need notice-and-comment rulemaking to change interpretive regulations. This broad ruling exempts agency interpretations of laws and regulations from any notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, allowing agencies to substantially alter interpretations without notice.

Simply put, the DOL’s guidance signifies that misclassification is an enforcement priority for the agency, with the agency being of the view that far too many workers are currently being misclassified. Employers should reevaluate their compliance with the independent contractor classification.


©2019 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.