Congress Re-Introduces Independent Contractor Misclassification Law

by Pepper Hamilton LLP
Contact

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) announced on November 12, 2013 that he had introduced a bill called the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2013 at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety. The bill is yet another effort to introduce legislation at the federal level to curtail the misclassification of independent contractors (ICs), which the sponsors equate with “payroll fraud.”

The bill (S.1687), which is being co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Al Franken (D-MN), is virtually identical to a bill (S.770) of the same name that was introduced in April 2011 – the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2011.

Casey noted at the outset of the hearing that independent contractors “serve a valuable role in our economy” and that the bill is not an effort “to point fingers at companies that are following the law or law-abiding independent contractors.” Instead, Casey focused on the need for Congress to pass new legislation outlawing what he called the “intentional misclassification” of employees as ICs – a practice that he labeled as “payroll fraud.”

The ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), complimented Casey at the hearing for distinguishing between “intentional and unintentional misclassification.” He urged Casey “not to throw out people playing by the rules.”

A close examination of the bill, however, reveals that unintentional misclassification would indeed violate the provisions of the proposed new law. Even a good-faith misclassification would still constitute a violation.

Analysis of the Main Provisions of the New Bill

The Payroll Fraud Prevention Act would make misclassification of employees as ICs a new federal labor offense. It would expand the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (which currently addresses minimum wage, overtime, and child labor laws) to cover a new category of workers – non-employees – and make it a special prohibited act to “wrongly classify an employee as a non-employee.”

The bill has a number of other key provisions, but the one most likely to receive the most attention is the obligation for every employer and enterprise to provide a classification notice for both “non-employees” and “employees.” This notice would require every business to provide a written notice to all workers performing labor or services that (a) they have been classified by the business either “as an employee or non-employee,” (b) directing them to a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Web site for further information about the rights of employees under the law, and (c) informing them to contact the DOL if they “suspect [they] have been misclassified.”

Even businesses that do not use any ICs or other non-employees would be affected by the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2013. Every employer or enterprise would be required to issue such notices to all its employees within six months following passage of the law for incumbent workers and, with respect to new employees and non-employees, at the commencement of the new worker’s employment or IC relationship.

Any business, even one not using any non-employees and even one whose ICs have been properly classified as “non-employees,” would be subject to heavy fines for violations of the new notice rule if it failed to provide the new notice specified in the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act. The civil penalties for any failure to provide a notice is a specified amount “for each employee or other individual who was the subject of such a violation” in an amount of $1,100 for a first offense and up to $5,000 for a second offense or a “willful” violation. The language of the bill may arguably indicate that if an employer or enterprise neglected to provide the required notice to a large number of workers, the penalty may be considerable – $1,100 (or up to $5,000 if a second offense) multiplied by the number of employees or non-employees who did not receive the required notice or did not receive it in a timely manner.

Another significant penalty for failure to give the required notice is the creation of a presumption that a “non-employee” is an “employee” if the business fails to provide the worker with the prescribed notice or does so in an untimely fashion. The bill further provides that the presumption of employment can only be rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence that a covered individual ... is not an employee ....”

Other Provisions of the New Bill

The new bill also would also:

  • pierce the so-called “corporate veil” by including in the definition of “non-employees” those who provide services through a corporation or LLC, if they are required to create or maintain such entities as a “condition for the provision of such labor or services”
  • impose triple damages for willful violations of the minimum wage or overtime laws where the employer has misclassified the worker
  • direct the Secretary of Labor to establish a misclassification Web site
  • authorizes the Secretary of Labor to impose additional penalties upon employers that misclassify employees for unemployment compensation purposes
  • authorize the DOL to report misclassification information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
  • direct the DOL to conduct “targeted audits” of certain industries “with frequent incidence of misclassifying employees as non-employees.”

Notably, although the bill seeks to crack down on misclassification, nothing in the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2013 would prohibit businesses from continuing to use ICs that are properly classified as such; it only prohibits companies from misclassifying workers as ICs when such workers are really “employees.”

Another Tax Bill Aimed at Section 530’s ‘Safe Harbor’ Reportedly Is on the Way

Casey also made reference in his remarks at the hearing to another IC bill that is likely to be introduced soon – a tax bill he said would be introduced in the Senate by Sen. Brown. In 2012, Brown was one of the co-sponsors of the Fair Playing Field Act of 2012. That bill sought to eliminate the so-called “safe harbor” in Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, which has been relied upon by some businesses that for years may have consistently misclassified employees as independent contractors.

This Bill May Re-Energize the IC Misclassification Crackdown

Regardless of whether the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2013 gains traction in Congress, its introduction may re-awaken attention to the issue of IC misclassification and re-energize those who have been disappointed by congressional inactivity in this area, particularly federal and state regulators, state legislators, employee rights advocates, and class-action lawyers.

Although Congress has not passed any IC misclassification legislation, state legislatures had been active in passing laws in this area. About half of the states have passed laws since July 2007 curtailing the use of ICs, increasing penalties for IC misclassification, creating IC misclassification task forces, and/or requiring state agencies to share information with other state agencies about companies that have been found to have misclassified employees as ICs.

The absence of federal IC misclassification legislation over the past six years has not diminished the activities of the DOL and the IRS, who have increasingly been cracking down on businesses that misclassify ICs. The DOL had embarked on a Misclassification Initiative that sought to coordinate DOL enforcement with state workforce agencies and the IRS and promote the sharing of information with state workforce agencies about companies that misclassify employees as ICs. The surge of that initiative may have abated over the past two years, but the introduction of the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act of 2013 may reinvigorate the federal DOL.

The most active regulatory enforcement tends to come from state workplace agencies. Unemployment compensation claims have the potential to become “mini-class actions” with substantial penalties and the likelihood of being reported to other workforce agencies whose laws may also have been violated.

Finally, plaintiffs’ class action lawyers continue to target companies that have not played by the rules regarding the use of ICs.

What Should Businesses Do to Minimize IC Misclassification Exposure?

Even companies that believe they have followed the rules in their classification of ICs have been surprised to realize that they have unwittingly failed to structure, document, and implement their IC relationships consistent with state and federal laws. Many companies that use ICs or conduct business using an IC-business model have taken steps to minimize their exposure to IC misclassification liability.

Businesses have utilized IC Diagnostics™, a proprietary process used to evaluate their level of IC compliance, assess compliance alternatives, and guide the restructuring, re-documentation, and re-implementation of IC relationships. These steps serve to enhance IC compliance and can minimize exposure for companies that wish to continue to use ICs – and do so without undue worries.

 

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP
Contact
more
less

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.