Labor

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks. 

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties. 

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here. 

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren't law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA. 

Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country. 

Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.” 

Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax. 

EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.

The Ohio General Assembly is back in Columbus after the March 19^th primary election, and committee schedules are already filling up. Given the increased activity in recent weeks, we thought it was a good time to examine what has happened legislatively this year up until this point.

H.B. 64—Eminent Domain. This bill was first introduced by Representatives Kick (R-Loudonville) and Creech (R-West Alexandria) in February of 2023. The bill’s purpose is to make it more difficult for governmental agencies or private entities to take private property through eminent domain. On February 6, 2024, the bill was updated with a Substitute House Bill 64 in the House Civil Justice Committee.

The previous version of the bill excluded recreational trails from the definition of “public use,” meaning that property could not be taken by a government agency for recreational trails. The current version of the bill narrows this language, allowing for a taking for the purpose of creating recreational trails, but not in cases where the property is not adjacent to a public road and where the property’s primary use will be for a recreational trail.

Another substantial change between the versions involves compensation offers from the government entity to the landowner. In the original version of the bill, a government entity would not have been allowed to reduce an offer made to purchase property before proceedings commenced if the reduction was based on hard-to-discover issues with the property. The current version would exclude this provision, restoring an agency’s authority to reduce offers.

Substitute House Bill 64 would also make changes to compensation and awards landowners could receive if the issue goes to court.

H.B. 197—Solar Development. Sponsored by Representatives Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Ray (R-Wadsworth), H.B. 197 would establish a the community solar pilot program and the solar development program. Under the language of the bill, a “community solar facility” is defined as a single facility with at least three subscribers and a nameplate capacity of 10 megawatts or less, or 20 megawatts or less if on a distressed site. Furthermore, the bill would require The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to establish a Community Solar Pilot Program of 250 megawatts on sites in the Appalachian region of the state. The bill would also amend the state competitive retail electric service policy to encourage community solar facilities in the state and allow subscribers to community solar facilities to receive monthly electric bill offsets.

H.B. 324—Motor Fuel. Introduced by Representatives McClain (R-Upper Sandusky) and Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) in November of 2023, H.B. 324 passed the House on February 7, 2024 and was referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 27. 

If passed, the bill would authorize a temporary, nonrefundable income or CAT tax credit of 5 cents per gallon for retail dealers who sell high-ethanol blend motor fuel containing between 15-85% ethanol. The tax credit would be limited to five years or to a total of $10 million, whichever occurs first.

H.B. 327—Employee Verification. H.B. 327, introduced by Representatives Wiggam (R-Wayne County), and Swearingen (R-Huron), had its first committee hearing in House Commerce & Labor on February 13, 2024. The bill would require political subdivisions, private employers employing 75 individuals within the state of Ohio, and nonresidential construction contractors to verify each new employee’s work eligibility through the federal E-verify program. E-Verify is an online program that helps employers verify employees’ eligibility for employment. If the bill were to pass, the employer would be required to keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer. During testimony on the bill, Representatives Wiggam and Swearingen indicated an interest in possibly lowering the employee threshold, citing Florida’s 25 employee threshold.

H.B. 347—Farming Equipment Taxes. This bill was introduced by Representative Don Jones (R-Freeport) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee in early December of 2023. Since then, the bill has been heard in committee twice, once in January, and once in February, both times without testimony. The bill would change the way farmers claim a tax exemption on certain purchases.

Currently, when an Ohioan engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture is buying a product for “agricultural use,” they must provide the seller with an exemption certificate. This certificate comes from the Ohio Department of Taxation and relieves the seller of the obligation to collect the sales tax on behalf of the state. However, the Department of Taxation can later determine that the purchase does not qualify for exemption, and then the farmer would be expected to pay the tax.

H.B. 347 would slightly alter this current way of doing things when it comes to the purchase of certain vehicles and trailers. Under the bill, the purchaser could receive an agricultural use exemption for taxes on these vehicles if the purchaser shows the seller copies of the purchaser’s Schedule F—the federal income tax profit of loss from farming form—for three most recent preceding years. Alternatively, a farmer could obtain a certificate from the Department of Taxation verifying that they have filed a Schedule F for three years in lieu of providing the forms directly to the seller. Notably, the bill states that “no other documentation or explanation shall be required by the vendor or the tax commissioner” to prove that the purchase qualifies for the agricultural use exemption.

The following vehicles and trailers would be included under the bill:

• Trailers, excluding watercraft trailers;
• Utility vehicles, (vehicles with a bed, principally for the purpose of transporting material or cargo in connection with construction, agricultural, forestry, grounds maintenance, land and garden, materials handling, or similar activities);
• All-purpose vehicles, (vehicles designed primarily for cross-country travel on land and water, or on multiple types of terrain, but excluding golf carts);
• Compact tractors (garden tractors, small utility tractors, and riding mowers).

H.B. 364—Seed Labeling; Noxious Weeds. Sponsored by Representatives Dobos (R-Columbus), and Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), H.B. 364 had its first hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on February 6, 2024.  Specifically, the bill would allow the Ohio Prairie Association and other noncommercial entities sharing seeds to distribute milkweed seeds non-commercially to i members, with the intent of promoting habitats for pollinators like monarch butterflies.

The bill would legally define “non-commercial seed sharing” as the distribution or transfer of ownership of seeds with no compensation or remuneration. Also included in the definition are a list of situations that are not considered “non-commercial seed sharing,” including when:

• The seeds are given as compensation of work or services rendered;

• The seeds are collected outside of Ohio;
• The seeds are patented, treated, or contain noxious weed species or invasive plants.

H.B. 364 also includes a definition of “seed library,” which it defines as a non-profit, governmental, or cooperative organization or association to which both of the following apply:

• It is established for the purpose of facilitating the donation, exchange, preservation, and dissemination of seeds among the seed library’s members or the general public.

• The use, exchange, transfer, or possession of seeds acquired by or from the non-profit governmental, or cooperative organization or association are obtained free of charge.

The bill would further exempt non-commercial seed sharers and seed libraries from labeling, advertising, handling, and sales restrictions under Ohio law.

To further the goal of promoting pollinators and habitats, H.B. 364 would make changes to the requirements for maintaining toll roads, railroads, or electric railways. Current law requires managers of such thoroughfares to destroy a number of noxious weeds along the roadway or in right of ways. The bill would no longer require the destruction of Russian thistle, Canadian thistle, common thistle, wild lettuce, wild mustard, wild parsnip, ragweed, milkweed, or ironweed. 

H.B. 447—Property Tax. Introduced on March 12, 2024 by Representative Loychik (R-Cortland), H.B. 447 was referred to the House Ways & Means Committee on April 2, 2024. The bill would modify and expand property tax homestead exemptions, gradually reduce school districts’ 20-mill floor for tax levies and modify the formula for determining farmland’s current agricultural use value (CAUV). The change to CAUV would involve the calculation of the overall capitalization rate for agricultural land.  Current law does not establish a minimum rate, but the bill would do so by stating that overall capitalization rate plus additur shall not be less than 10 percent.  Since a higher capitalization rate results in a lower CAUV value and because the current capitalization rate is around 8%, the change would likely lower CAUV values.

S.B. 156—Scenic Rivers. This bill, sponsored by Senators Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Hackett (R-London) passed the Ohio Senate on January 24, 2024, and was referred in the House to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on February 6, 2024. The bill would transfer the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program from the Division of Parks and Watercraft to the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) in ODNR. The bill would narrow the scope DNAP’s authority to watercourses designated as wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Currently, the law is written so that the regulatory agency has authority over areas. “Areas” encompass not just the water, but also the land surrounding rivers. On the other hand, “watercourses” are defined as “substantially natural channel[s] that [are] at least five miles in length with recognized banks and a bottom in which the flow or water occurs.” Thus, agency oversight would be diminished from the river and its surrounding area to just confines of the river itself.

The bill also clarifies that a watercourse designation does not affect private property rights adjacent to a designated river.

Finally, the bill would require DNAP to adopt rules for the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and provide for the establishment of facilities and improvements that are necessary for their visitation, use, restoration, and protection, but do not impair their natural character.

S.B. 226—Agricultural Land. S.B. 226 was introduced by Senator Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) in late February and referred to the Veterans & Public Safety Committee on February 27, 2024. The bill would create the Ohio Property Protection Act, which would include protection of:

• Agricultural land, defined as “land suitable for use in agriculture,” including the water on the land, airspace above the land, and natural products and products from the land;
• Any land located within a twenty-five-mile radius of any installation under the jurisdiction of the United States Armed Forces;
• Any land located within a twenty-five radius of a critical infrastructure facility.

To protect property in the above categories, the bill would make it illegal for the following people and entities to acquire or purchase such property:

• Those persons and foreign adversaries listed on a registry compiled by the Ohio Secretary of State;
• A government of a foreign adversary;
• An individual who is a citizen of a foreign adversary;
• A business that is headquartered in a foreign adversary;
• A business that is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by one or more of the above persons and entities; and
• An agent, fiduciary, or trustee of the above persons and entities.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has introduced a new independent contractor rule, aiming to provide clarity and guidance for both employers and workers. The classification of workers as employees or independent contractors has become increasingly complex in recent years, resembling an endless carousel ride for many businesses, particularly those in the agricultural sector that frequently hire part-time and seasonal help. The DOL's new rule, published under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), seeks to put an end to this perpetual uncertainty surrounding worker classification once and for all.

Background
The FLSA establishes federal standards for overtime pay, minimum wage, and child labor. Ohio law explicitly aligns its interpretation of the term "employee" with that of the FLSA for wage and hour purposes. For the FLSA to apply to an agricultural employer, an employment relationship must be established. This entails determining whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor.

However, the FLSA itself is silent on how to exactly distinguish an independent contractor from an employee. So, for years the DOL relied on the court system to develop the standard for determining whether a worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. The court system developed an “economic realities test” to help determine whether an employment relationship exists with a worker. The economic realities test is a totality of the circumstances test – which means all factors should be weighed evenly – and relies on six factors. These factors are: 

1. The nature and degree of control over the work; 
2. The individual’s opportunity for profit or loss;
3. The permanency of the work relationship;  
4. Whether the work being performed is an integral part of the Employer’s business; 
5. The worker’s investment in facilities and equipment; and 
6. Skill and initiative. 

For decades courts and the DOL have applied these factors, or a similar variation of them, to help define employee and independent contractor under the FLSA. However, courts across the country have applied the factors inconsistently and have given certain factors different degrees of weight. 

2021 Independent Contractor Rule
In 2021, the DOL sought to resolve the inconsistent and subjective application of the factors by publishing a formal independent contractor rule (“2021 IC Rule”). This 2021 IC Rule marks the DOL’s first attempt to establish a standardized test for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees.  

The 2021 IC Rule used a variation of the economic realities test but gave greater weight to “two core factors” rather than applying each factor equally. The “two core factors” are: 

1. The nature and degree of control over the work; and 
2. The individual’s opportunity for profit or loss.

In the 2021 IC Rule, the DOL stated that the two core factors “are the most probative as to whether or not an individual is an economically dependent ‘employee’ . . . and each therefore typically carries greater weight in the analysis than any other factor.” The DOL also stated that if the two core factors “both point towards the same classification, whether employee or independent contractor, there is a substantial likelihood that is the individual’s accurate classification.” This is because, according to the DOL, the other factors are less probative and may not be probative at all and are “highly unlikely, either individually or collectively, to outweigh the combined probative value of the two core factors.” 

In other words, the DOL established a rule that looked at two core factors to determine the economic reality of the relationship between a worker and an employer. Thus, under the 2021 IC Rule, the economic realities test looked something like this: 

1. Core Factors
   1. The nature and degree of control over the work; and
   2. The individual’s opportunity for profit or loss.
2. Other Factors
   1. The permanency of the work relationship;  
   2. Whether the work being performed is an integral part of the Employer’s business; 
   3. The worker’s investment in facilities and equipment; 
   4. Skill and initiative; and
   5. Any additional factors 

New 2024 Rule
The carousel ride does not stop at the 2021 IC Rule, unfortunately. In January of 2024, the DOL published another rule, repealing the 2021 IC Rule and reverting back to a totality of the circumstances analysis of the economic realities test in which there are no core factors, and all factors are weighed evenly. The new rule, effective March 11, 2024, evaluates the following factors: 

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill; 
2. Investments by the worker and the employer; 
3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship; 
4. Nature and degree of control; 
5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business;
6. Skill and initiative; and
7. Any additional factors. 

Below is a more detailed analysis of the above seven factors. 

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill. This factor assesses whether a worker possesses managerial abilities that impact their capacity to generate profit or incur losses. Relevant considerations include: 
   1. Negotiating pay for services rendered 
   2. Having the freedom to accept or decline jobs 
   3. Choosing the order or time in which jobs are completed 
   4. Engaging in marketing, advertising, or other business expansion efforts
   5. Making decisions regarding hiring, purchasing materials and equipment, or renting space 

If a worker lacks the opportunity for profit or loss, they are likely an employee. 

2. Investments by the worker and the employer. This factor examines whether a worker’s investments are capital or entrepreneurial in nature. Costs incurred by a worker to perform their job, like purchasing tools or equipment, are not indicative of entrepreneurial investment and suggest employee status. Conversely, investments supporting an independent business, such as expanding capabilities, reducing costs, or broadening market reach, suggest entrepreneurial investment and independent contractor status.  

3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship. If the work relationship is indefinite in duration or continuous, the worker is probably an employee. If the work relationship is definite in duration, non-exclusive, project-based, or sporadic because the worker is in business for himself or herself and marketing his or her services or labor to multiple entities, then the worker is probably an independent contractor. 

4. Nature and degree of control. This factor assesses the level of control the employer exercises over the work and economic aspects of the relationship. Greater control by the employer suggests and employee relationship, while more control by the worker indicates independent contractor status.  Factors include the employer setting the worker’s schedule, supervising work performance, limiting the worker’s ability to work for others, using technological means for supervision, reserving the right to supervise or discipline workers, determining who sets the prices or rates for services provided by the worker, and the marketing of the services or products that the worker provides. 

5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business. This factor evaluates whether the work performed is essential to the employer's business operations. It focuses on the function performed rather than the individual worker. If the service provided is indispensable for the employer's functioning, it favors an employee classification. Conversely, if the work is not crucial to the employer's core business, it leans towards independent contractor status.

6. Skill and initiative. The skill and initiative factor evaluates whether the worker utilizes specialized skills and demonstrates entrepreneurial initiative in their work. If the worker lacks specialized skills or relies on employer-provided training, it suggests employee status. Conversely, if the worker brings specialized skills and exhibits business-like initiative, they are likely an independent contractor. 

7. Any Additional Factors. Additional factors may be relevant in determining the status of a worker. These additional factors may indicate whether the worker operates as an independent business entity or is economically reliant on the potential employer for work opportunities.

Under the new rule, no one factor is dispositive of determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. For example, a landscaper may perform work that does not require specialized skills, but application of the other factors may demonstrate that the landscaper is an independent contractor (e.g. the landscaper may determine the price charged for the work, make decisions affecting opportunity for profit or loss, determine the extent of capital investment, work for many clients, and/or perform work for clients for which landscaping is not integral). 

What does it all mean? 
In announcing the new rule, the DOL said “[i]t is the Department’s obligation to administer and enforce the FLSA to ensure that workers who should be covered under the [FLSA] are properly classified as employees.” Many seem to suggest that this new rule is more employee friendly and makes it easier to classify a worker as an employee than the 2021 IC Rule.

The new rule, however, only affects a worker’s classification under the FLSA. The same standard does not apply to other federal laws, like the Internal Revenue Code. Nevertheless, those standards used in other federal laws may look eerily similar to the standard used here.  

Lastly, the carousel ride may not yet be over. There are already legal challenges to the new rule that might put the DOL’s hopes of ushering in a new period of clarity at risk (See Warren v U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 2:24-cv-00007, N.D. Ga.). 

Consequences of Misclassifying Workers. 
Misclassifying a worker can come with harsh consequences. An employer that misclassifies a worker may be required to pay unpaid wages owed to the employee, civil money penalties, and/or attorneys’ fees associated with litigation. Furthermore, employers may be held criminally and/or civilly liable under other federal and state statues for misclassifying a worker. It is vital that agricultural employers take classification of a worker seriously because all it takes is one disgruntled misclassified worker or workplace injury to a misclassified worker to seriously jeopardize an operation. 

Sources: 
Independent Contractor Status Under the Fair Labor Standard Act, 86 CFR 1168
Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Standards Act, 89 CFR 1638