How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape
March 16, 2020 —
Jason Morris – Newmeyer DillionAs a result of California's Assembly Bill 5, effective January 1, 2020, the California Supreme Court's ABC test is now the standard for evaluating independent contractor classifications for purposes of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Labor Code, and the California Unemployment Insurance Code. That dramatically ups the ante for companies that rely on independent contractors, particularly those that have not re-evaluated such classifications under the ABC test.
Misclassification cases can be devastating, especially for misclassified non-exempt employees, and can result in minimum wage violations, missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, record-keeping violations, steep penalties, attorneys' fees, and even criminal liability, among other consequences. Misclassifying workers creates enormous risks for companies and is fertile ground for class actions and representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
The Costs Of Misclassification Are Expensive, And Hope Is Not A Strategy
Many business owners I speak to understand AB5 has caused the ground to shift beneath their feet and recognize the resulting risks of misclassifying workers. Despite these risks, companies often balk at taking the necessary steps to evaluate their classifications and mitigate the risk of an adverse classification finding.
The most common reason I hear from resistant companies is the worker does not want to be reclassified as an employee and the company trusts the worker ("I've worked with her for years; she won't sue me because she wants to be a contractor"). I get it. Making the change from contractor to employee results in less flexibility and greater administrative burden for everyone involved. While I'm sympathetic, the government is not. Reluctance to change while acknowledging the associated risks amounts to a strategy based on hope. As we say in the Marine Corps, however, "hope is not a strategy."
Aside from the sometimes foolhardy belief that a misclassified worker can be trusted to not file suit after a business breakup (when the deposits stop and mortgage bill comes due, guess who's a prime target), companies often fail to recognize the numerous ways in which their classification decisions can be challenged even when they are in agreement with their (misclassified) contractors. Here are just three examples of how your classifications can be scrutinized despite the lack of a challenge by the worker:
- Auto Accidents: Whether delivering products, making sales calls, or traveling between job sites, independent contractors often perform work that requires driving. Of course, sometimes drivers are involved in automobile accidents. When accidents happen, insurance companies step in and look for sources of money to fund claims, attorneys' fees, costs, and settlements. One potential source is your insurance. "But the driver isn't my employee!," you say. You better buckle up because the other motorist's insurance carrier is about to challenge your classification in an attempt to access your insurance policies.
- EDD Audits: During the course of the last several years, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) has increased the number of verification (random) audits it performs in search of additional tax revenue. One reason government agencies prefer hiring entities classifying workers as employees rather than independent contractors is it's a more efficient tax collection method; employers collect employees' taxes on the government's behalf, which increases collection rates and reduces government collection costs. The consequences of misclassification include pricey fines, penalties, and interest.
- Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and Disability Claims: In addition to verification audits, the EDD performs request (targeted) audits. Targeted audits may result when a contractor files an unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or disability claim because independent contractors are ineligible for such benefits. Request audits, like verification audits, can result in costly fines, penalties, and interest if the EDD concludes you have misclassified your workers. Even so, that may not be the worst of it: the EDD often shares its findings with the Internal Revenue Service.
Your Action Plan
AB5 has changed the measuring stick, misclassification costs are high, and you do not have complete control of when the government or others can challenge your classifications. So what can you do? Here are several steps all prudent companies should take if they are using independent contractors:
- Conduct an audit of current classification practices;
- Review written independent contractor agreements;
- Implement written independent contractor agreements;
- Update workplace policies;
- Update organizational charts;
- Reclassify independent contractors as employees if necessary.
Jason Morris is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer Dillion. Jason's practice concentrates on the areas of labor and employment and business litigation. He advises employers and business owners in employment litigation, as well as advice and counsel related to employment policies and investigations. You can reach him at jason.morris@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWith the resurgence of the construction industry, another trend is going up and it’s not good. The workplace fatality rate for the construction industry has increased for the first time since 2006, according to a new report from Marsh Risk Consulting, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The increase to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 workers is attributed to “an influx of new, inexperienced workers” and that “some contractors are stretching their hiring standards to meet project demands.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]
May 03, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCFor government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs.
Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?
October 17, 2023 —
Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana FeldA settlement agreement is a contract. When parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement, they enter into a contract. Such a contract is subject to the general law governing all contracts. (T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280 [204 Cal. Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338] [offers by a party to compromise under Code Civ. Proc., § 998].) Courts seek to interpret contracts in a manner that will render them “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect’” without violating the intent of the parties. (Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241, 272–273; Kaufman v. Goldman, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745.
A settlement agreement like a contract is a document that is typically negotiated between the parties to the agreement and it is up to the parties to determine its terms. Settlements take time and sometimes negotiating the settlement terms takes longer. This is especially true in complex litigation and multiparty matters where negotiating the settlement terms is just as contentious as litigating the matter. Just like contracts, in a settlement agreement the parties cannot agree to terms that violate public policy. A contract is thought to be against public policy if it results in a breach of law, harms citizens, or causes injury to the state. Contracts that are voided on public policy grounds carry no legal obligations. For example, an employer cannot force an employee to sign a contract that forbids the worker from joining a union.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld
Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame
November 30, 2016 —
Curtis W. Martin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. BulletinWho is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The
owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the
wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a
case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied
duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required
to correct the problem.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@pecklaw.com
When Can Customers Sue for Delays?
September 18, 2023 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogConstruction projects are subject to many internal and external factors. Due to this, delays are not an uncommon occurrence. Whether delays are the result of bad weather conditions or supply chain issues, contractors and their clients cannot control every aspect of the project.
Delay issues are very
common construction disputes. Therefore, new and experienced contractors alike need to know when their clients may have a reason for a delay claim.
2 particular types of delays that pose a risk
Common obstacles that contractors faced during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic involved supply chain issues. The lack of materials put various projects on hold across California and the country. This widespread issue was out of contractors’ and clients’ control, meaning they were excusable delays.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss
November 05, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured subcontractor sought coverage under its Builder's Risk policy for loss despite already being paid under contract the amount sought under the policy. MKB Constr. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136096 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2014).
MKB contracted with the Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) to place gravel fill for a new building pad upon which a school building would be placed in Emmonak, Alaska. The project site was built on tundra that melted in the summer, becoming marshy and pocketed by pools of standing water. LYSD provided the bidding contractors with information stating that settlements of 3 to 9 inches could be expected in areas with 30 inches of fill.
The contract was awarded to MKB, who subsequently realized it had under bid the amount of gravel fill that would be required. The estimated difference in the amount bid and the amount that would be needed was 6,583 cubic yards. LYSD refused to increase the contract price.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.
In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”
The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
