NJ Governor’s Report on Misclassification

Governor Phil Murphy today released a comprehensive report from the Task Force on Employee Misclassification, vowing to intensify efforts to curtail the widespread and illegal practice of misclassifying workers as independent contractors instead of employees, which cheats some workers out of benefits and wages, hurts law-abiding business owners, and costs the state tens of millions of dollars a year in lost employment-related tax revenue.

Employment Status Not Dependent on Exercising the Right to Control

Who an employee works for is determined by whether an employer may control the employee and not the exercise of the right. A NJ Appellate Court ruled in a dual employment issue that employment status is not dispositive by a single factor and that right to control an employee can be shared which establishes a dual employment situation.

Forklift Operator Not A “Special Employee”

 Special equipment operators often appear to work for two employers simultaneously. The facade of dual employment may not meet the criteria for being a shared employee or “special employee.”

Joint Employment: The Attack on the Citadel

The Trump Administration has just initiated a step to shield major companies from challenges from employees who are working for a franchise. What was considered as “join employment” under an Obama-Era ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been reversed. The test of indirect control or unexercised control over a worker will no longer be valid to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Exclusivity Rule: Police Officer Hired to Direct Traffic Was a Special Employee-Unpublished Opinion

A municipal police officer who was hired by a contractor to direct traffic at a construction site was determined to be a “special employee” and barred from suing a co-worker of the construction company. The NJ Appellate Court has held, in an unpublished opinion*, the  “Exclusivity Rule” barred the institution of a civil action against a co-worker.

Employment Status: Common Law Tests May Need an Update

The application of the common-law standard to determine employment status may no longer be relevant in the age of the gig economy. The NJ Appellate Division ruled that the common law test utilized to determine employment status could not be utilized in the interpretation of a medical malpractice insurance policy.

Adult Club Dancer Is An Employee

An adult club dancer was held to be an employee in a recent NJ workers' compensation decision. The Court relied upon both, the Right to Control Test and the Relative Nature of the Work Test in making its determination of employment status.

The Honorable E. Elaine Voyles, Judge of Compensation, held:

"Although the parties were unable to enter into any stipulations, many of the relevant facts are not disputed. The Petitioner was employed as a dancer at the time of her accident. The Respondent, is an adult club wherein Petitioner, and other dancers, entertained patrons. Both parties agreed that Petitioner was required to fill out an application (P1) and audition for her position. Both parties agreed that Petitioner's schedule changed on a weekly basis and that the dancers could set their own schedule. There was further agreement that Petitioner was not paid a salary and that she worked for tips. According to the testimony of both sides, Petitioner did not have to share her tips except for when she performed a "couch dance". The cost for a "couch dance" was $20 of which $15 was given to the dancer and five dollars was retained by the Respondent.

"Petitioner testified that once the weekly schedule was set the dancers were required to appear at their designated times. She further testified that she could not leave the facility between dances and that she was required to finish out her shift.

****

"In assessing the degree of Respondent's right to exercise control over the Petitioner, the Court must examine the arrangements made between the Petitioner and Respondent.  Despite the fact that Petitioner set her own hours I find the Respondent exercised a substantial degree of control over Petitioner.  Petitioner was required to converse with patrons and perform both pole and couch dances. Petitioner was not free to come and go as she pleased. Once she arrived for her shift she was required to stay until that shift was completed. Dancers were chastised if they were found not to be entertaining the patrons.

****

"The court further finds that Petitioner was economically dependent upon the Respondent. Petitioner testified that she worked an average of five shifts per week and that the shifts averaged 8- 12 hours in duration. Additionally, Petitioner testified that her only source of income at the time of her assault was the money she earned working for the Respondent. As stated previously the Court found the testimony of the petitioner to be credible.

Colvin v Coconuts 2013-16306 NJ Division of Workers' Compensation 

Decided July 14, 2014 - Posted by NJ DWC September 29, 2015

Related articles

• Court of Compensation Does Not Have Jurisdiction for Restitution (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Compensable Mental Stress and Conflict of Law Decisions Posted (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Benzene Exposure Claim: Court Dismisses Alleged Fatal Multiple Myeloma (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Equitable Relief Permits Reinstatement of Dismissed Workers' Compensation Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Home is an Odyssey For The Aging Population (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Path to Federalization: US Supreme Court Again Validates the Affordable Care Act (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Joint Employment: Workers' Compensation's New Frontier In The New Shared Economy

Last week the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision that may have far reaching impact on how "joint employment" is interpreted in workers' compensation cases. Under the doctrine of "joint employment" an employee may be considered an employee of two employers and the ultimate responsibility maybe passed to franchisor under both, The Right to Control or The Nature of the Work, tests.

On-Call Employment: Uber on Steriods

The NY Attorney General took action yesterday to rein in the growing emergence of "on-call staffing." The new dynamic of on demand staffing continues to be a growing trend in the employment arena. It is sort of an Uber on steroids.

The historic legal concepts that determine compensability in workers compensation cases have traditionally been defined by the concept of "arising out of and in the course of employment." Those parameters are indeed going to be challenged by the concept of "on-call employment."