Some employers attempt to avoid incurring some of the costs of employing employees by classifying employees as independent contractors. Sometimes this even happens after the employee has worked for some time as a regular employee but are then told they will be considered an independent contractor going forward. This can be a real problem because independent contractors, unlike employees, are not eligible for overtime pay, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation and many other benefits that come with employee status. Employers may also argue that independent contractors are precluded from bringing wrongful termination claims because they were never actually employed by the company.
The federal and state governments are very interested in ensuring that employees are property classified because misclassified employees not only lose access to important legal benefits and protections, but cost state and federal government significant sums of money in the form of lower tax revenues, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation premiums. Employees are harmed because they are forced to pay 100% of their payroll (FICA) taxes and face future liabilities if the IRS determines that taxes and deductions taken by the employees were impermissible.
Whether a worker is an employee as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, or may properly be classified as an independent contractor, is a legal question that requires a careful analysis of the working relationship between the employer and the employee. The description assigned by the employer, or even agreed to by the parties, does not determine whether the classification is appropriate, which instead is based on the economic realities of that relationship. The determination essentially comes down to answering the question of whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer (making him or her an employee) or is really in business for him or herself (thus an independent contractor).
Many employees who believe that are being misclassified by their employers seek to remedy the situation by raising the issue with their employer and demanding that they be deemed employees and that they receive all the rights and benefits afforded to employees. Rather than rectify the situation some employers simply terminate the employees employment in favor of hiring someone else who won't complain. Such a termination could violate certain whistleblower protections afforded under state and federal law.
The United States Department of Labor raised these and other related claims in a lawsuit decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. In Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F. 2d 1286 (3rd Cir. 1991) the Court considered claims filed against Selker Brothers, a distributor of gasoline, oil and other related products, alleging that Selker Brothers had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping and anti-retaliation provisions.
The Court found that Selker Brothers owned the gas that the gas stations at issue sold, that station operators had no investment in the gas, and Selker Brothers determined the price of gas at every station. The operators had keys to the pumps, but Selker Brothers did not give them the keys to the gasoline storage tanks and did not allow the operators to paint cars or do body work at the stations.
The only compensation the station operators received from Selker Brothers was three cents commission on every gallon of gas sold and ten cents per gallon commission on sales of kerosene. This commission was not negotiable and could not be changed by the operators. For credit card sales of gasoline, operators were required by Selker Brothers to add a surcharge of three percent.
Each station had an island for pumping gas, a building for an office, as well as a sales area, storage area and garage. None of the station operators had written leases. The operators paid no rent, but did pay a portion of the stations' monthly utilities, which Selker deducted from their commission checks along with other deductions for supplies, shortages and start up inventory. Selker controlled the hours of operation of each station and illumination of the stations at night. Selker maintained no records of the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment for the station operators or for other persons employed at the stations.
One of the stations was run by Michael Cassano, who worked on average sixty hours per week, and employed workers to pump gas and do mechanical work. From July 20, 1986 through August 1988, Selker Brothers paid Cassano $19,826.01. Cassano supplemented these earnings by selling non-gasoline items including batteries, oil, candy and tobacco. His earnings from these sales averaged $400 per month. Selker Brothers fired Cassano and one of his assistants on August 31, 1988. Cassano testified that he had complained to Selker Brothers' owner, Bernard Selker, that earnings based on commissions per gallon fell short of the minimum wage and Selker had admitted the arrangement could be illegal. The Court found that Cassano and the assistant were wrongfully discharged because they complained Selker, and then to the Department of Labor, about FLSA violations at the station. That complaint was effectively that they had been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees.
Although wrongful termination claims arising from an employee's misclassification as an independent contractor are not as common as other retaliatory discrimination claims they are no less valid. In order to preserve claims they must be brought in a timely manner and individuals are almost always best served by finding an experienced employment attorney to represent them. Unfortunately, its not always easy to find an attorney and it can be costly to hire a lawyer if you are unprepared. It is also important to avoid doing anything that can jeopardize your case.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-108.02 governs the appointment of administrative law judges for the Arizona Industrial Commission. This section states:
A. The commission shall appoint administrative law judges of the commission who shall be members of the Arizona state bar.
B. The annual compensation of the chief administrative law judge and of the administrative law judges shall be as determined pursuant to section 38-611.
This section of the Arizona statutes, first enacted in 1968 and subsequently amended on at least three occasions, specifies that one of the duties of the Industrial Commission is to appoint lawyers, who must be members of the Arizona State Bar, to act as Administrative Law Judges to hear legal matters pending before the Commission. These matters generally fall within the scope of the General Powers granted to the Industrial Commission in A.R.S. § 23-107.
The Administrative Law Judges of the Industrial Commission act within the ALJ Division of the Commission, and work within the stated mission "to resolve disputed matters in workers’ compensation, youth employment and wages efficiently, impartially and equitably as the administrative tribunal of the ICA in matters that arise under the jurisdiction of the ICA."
The Industrial Commission employees several Administrative Law Judges in Phoenix and Tucson, who hear matters from throughout the State. Although the statute only specifies that the ALJs must be members of the Arizona State Bar, the Industrial Commission has established additional standards requiring that they must also have at least five years of experience in workers' compensation, employment, or a related field.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-109 addresses the uses of gifts and grants by the Arizona Industrial Commission as follows:
The industrial commission may accept and expend public and private gifts and grants for the conduct of programs which are consistent with the overall purposes and objectives of the commission.
This Arizona statute pertains to the funding sources that the Industrial Commission is authorized to receive funds from, and the use of those funds. Based on the language of the statute, which does not appear to have been the subject of much litigation since it was enacted in 1974, there are few limitations on the sources of funding for the Industrial Commission. The Commission is only able to use those funds, however, in ways that are "consistent with the overall purposes and objectives of the commission."
Although the "purposes and objectives" of the Industrial Commission are not expressly defined in this section of the statutes, nor elsewhere as far as I can tell, they may be generally derived from the balance of the governing statutes as set forth in A.R.S. §§ 23-101 - 23-110, and in Title 20, Section 5, of the Arizona Administrative Code, which is the section of the official rules of the State of Arizona governing state agencies, boards, and commissions that apply to the Industrial Commission.
In a ruling filed on January 23, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the Superior Court and overruled the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision in M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller, 228 Ariz. 478, 268 P.3d 1135 (Ct. App. 2011), which had applied the anti-deficiency protections of Arizona Revised Statute Section 33-814(G) where a borrower intended to eventually occupy a partially constructed home on the property.Read More
Arizona Revised Statute Section 33-103 addresses the placement of landmarks or monuments established pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33-101 - 33-106, which is the Article of the Arizona Revised Statutes governing landmarks and surveys in Arizona.Read More
In Arizona, one of the remedies available to a party who has been the victim of a contract breach is specific performance. Specific performance, as opposed to the alternative remedy of monetary damages, refers to the situation where a court orders the breaching party to honor his or her obligations under a contract - in other words, to perform as agreed.Read More
The FMLA allows many, but not all, Arizona employees to take up to 12 weeks off, unpaid, for certain qualifying family and medical reasons. Pursuant to the FMLA, employees may take available leave for qualifying reasons without being subject to repercussions, including the loss of pay or termination of their employment.Read More
Consideration, nevertheless, remains a contractual requirement, and although adequacy may not be examined, consideration must meet other pertinent requirements. One of these is that the consideration given, whether it be money, services, or some other measure of value, must be given in exchange for the transaction in question. In other words, past consideration is not sufficient.Read More
A.R.S. § 33-2301 is part of Title 33, Chapter 21 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-2301-2302), which address a tenant’s right to request a commercial landlord to provide information on companies that provide telecommunications services to the building in question.Read More
The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, was signed into law by President Obama on May 20, 2009. The Act contains several provisions designed to help tenants who are lawfully occupying a property that is foreclosed on due to the landlord's failure to pay the mortgage. The Act applies in foreclosure proceedings involving any federally-related mortgage loan on a residential property, which includes most residential properties in Arizona.Read More
In some cases a lender or their successor may maintain a legal action to recover a balance left owing after the sale or foreclosure of real estate pursuant to a trust deed, which is addressed in A.R.S. § 33-807. Section 33-814 addresses the ninety-day time limitation for bringing such actions, the procedure for establishing the fair market value to determine the amount of a deficiency judgment, and the obligations of guarantors.Read More
Over the years in meeting with thousands of clients and prospective clients I have learned that many people fail to understand the two distinct yet equally important parts of almost every lawsuit. From the moment a lawsuit is filed, your lawyer will begin preparing the case for trial, which involves gathering information to prove liability and damages.Read More
A.R.S. § 12-3102 is part of Title 12, Chapter 22 of the the Arizona Revised Statutes, and this particular section defines in what situations the Chapter will apply - in particular confirming its application is limited to live persons, as opposed to entities like corporations.Read More
The simple fact is that most cases settle. There are a number reasons that this is true, but at least one study suggests that settling is often the smart move. On August 7, 2008, the New York Times published an article entitled Study Finds Settling Is Better Than Going to Trial. The findings are consistent with the observations of many litigators who advise their clients that eliminating the risks and costs of trial can frequently be a smart move.Read More
A.R.S. § 33-2302 is part of Title 33, Chapter 20 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-2201-2211), which address ownership and timeshare management in Arizona. Many Arizona laws including statutory provisions defining certain terms that are utilized in the relevant law. This section pertains to the Timeshare Owners' Association and Management Act.Read More
Although most lenders, for both deficiency and tax reasons, simply assume the prevailing bid at a trustee's sale is the fair market value of a property, Arizona borrowers are entitled to challenge that presumption under Arizona law.Read More
A.R.S. § 12-3103 was enacted by the Arizona Legislature to expressly address the ability of courts and other official bodies to enforce foreign laws that may violate rights guaranteed by federal law or Arizona State law, or that conflict with such laws.Read More
The Arizona Employment Protection Act includes various employment protections that the legislature has deemed are consistent with the "public policy of this state." The Act also severely limits contract-based claims, effectively eliminating such claims if there is no written contract. One of the protections provided applies to retaliatory actions based on the exercise of workers' compensation rights.Read More
Although it is not a frequent occurrence, sometimes an employee is surprised when his or her employer fails to pay them wages earned. There are a variety of statutes and laws pertaining to the payment of wages, most of which are set forth at A.R.S. §§ 23-350 - 23-392, that require payment of wages within a specific period of time and also allow for certain penalties when wages are not paid in a timely manner.Read More