From the Connecticut Law Tribune, Robert Storace reports on a case in which limousine drivers settled their claims that they had been misclassified. Robert writes: Twenty-three current and former drivers for Connecticut Limousine have secured a $750,000 settlement against the company after challenging the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors, instead of employees. In their November…
From JDSupra, Michael LaVelle discusses the recent Connecticut Supreme Court Case in which the court said that an independent contractor does not have to have more than one client. Michael writes: The issue was whether Part C of the test, being customarily engaged in an independent trade or business, required the claimants to actually have other…
From JDSupra, Mary Gambardella, Lawrence Peikes, and Joshua Walls discuss the recent Connecticut Supreme Court case in which the court found that a worker who only had one client was an independent contractor. They write: Indeed, “it is important to consider that the [independent contractor] exemption becomes meaningless if it does not exempt anything from the statutory…
From the National Law Review, Michael Colgan Harrington and Madiha M. Malik discuss a recent Connecticut Supreme Court case in which an independent contractor who only had one client was still held to be an independent contractor under Connecticut’s ABC test. Michael and Madiha write: Under Connecticut law, the “ABC” Test has long been applied to determine whether an…
From Transport Topics, Eric Miller reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that Fedex drivers were independent contractors and not employees for the purpose of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Eric writes An appeals court has ruled that FedEx Ground Package System drivers working out of a…
From JDSupra, Jonathan Orleans discusses a case before the Connecticut Supreme Court in which interpretation of the third part (Part C) of the ABC test is being tested. Part C requires that a worker be customarily engaged in an independent business. Jonathan writes: A case now awaiting argument at the Court addresses part “C”…
Workerscompcentral reports that a carpenters organization is using an inflatable cat, “Fat Cat”, and inflatable pig, “Greedy Pig”, to protest the classification of workers in New Haven. The report says: The New England Regional Council of Carpenters brought out the two inflatables, named Fat Cat and Greedy Pig, on Tuesday for a lunch-hour protest…
From JDSupra, Meredith-Anne Berger, Lynn Kappelman, and William Perkins discuss the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision that service technicians that worked in customers’ homes provided services outside the company’s usual place of business. They write: In recognizing the uncertainty that accompanies a determination of employee/independent contractor status, the court undertook a comprehensive review of the appellate decisions…
From JDSupra, Christopher Engler reports that the Connecticut Supreme Court said that the “place of business” of a company did not extend to homes where technicians worked. Last year, Daniel Schwartz wrote that the employer had argued that its service technicians, who were independent contractors, provided a service that was “outside the…
From JDSupra, Daniel Schwartz discusses whether you can still use independent contractors and he concludes that you can if you use them sparingly. If you are in doubt, he likes the “duck” rule: Despite these specific criteria, I have reached the conclusion that the best test to determine whether a worker is an employee…