Among recent developments in independent contractor classification: A California bill would punish retailers that continue to do business with trucking companies sanctioned for IC misclassification of drivers. The NLRB extends its public comment deadline for input on its stance on IC classification.
Port of LA truck drivers. California lawmakers have entered the long-running fight over misclassification of drivers at the Port of Los Angeles with the introduction of the “Dignity in the Driver’s Seat” bill. The proposal takes aim at port trucking companies’ failure to pay up for affirmed violations by holding retailers that work with them jointly liable. The issue has been long-running, with the city of Los Angeles entering the fray earlier this year with its own lawsuit against the trucking firms. In 2016, an amnesty program went into effect to encourage drayage companies to rectify misclassification.
Separately, logistics firms agreed to pay $9.3 million to settle a class-action case brought by truck drivers in California who claim they’re misclassified as independent contractors, according to court documents. The proposed settlement still requires approval from the court.
NLRB involvement? The National Labor Relations Board has extended the deadline for public comments on whether IC misclassification is a violation of labor law. The new deadline is April 30.
Uber prevails. Last week, a Pennsylvania federal court ruled a group of UberBLACK drivers were properly classified as contractors and cannot maintain wage and hour claims against the ride-sharing company. This is a key victory gig economy companies have seen this year in misclassification cases, Richard Meneghello of law firm Fisher Phillips writes in a Lexology post.
Exotic dancers misclassified. A federal court judge in Philadelphia entered a nearly $4.6 million judgment in favor of a group of exotic dancers in a misclassification case brought against a strip club, the Penthouse Club. The dancers argued they had been mischaracterized as independent contractors instead of as employees and, as a result, the dancers were deprived of minimum wages and tips they earned. In this case, the club was deemed an employer in part because it had the power to ban dancers for violating club rules; and the club required dancers to pay “tip outs” to other club employees, including management, the DJ, security workers and valets.
