Case highlights the risk of misclassifying employees as independent contractors
Farms and other businesses can benefit by using independent contractors to fill labor needs while not having the same financial and legal responsibilities the business has for its employees. But state and federal laws allow those advantages only if the worker is truly an independent contractor. When a worker classified as “independent contractor” functions as an employee in the eyes of the law, a business can be liable for failing to meet its employer obligations for the worker. That’s exactly what happened in a recent case before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The company. The case involved Ugicom (the company), paid by Time Warner Cable under a subcontract to provide workers to install underground cable. Workers used the company’s website to select and document installation jobs and the company paid the workers at rates it determined. The installers were required to wear badges and vests identifying the company and to pass drug tests and background checks, all coordinated by Time Warner. The company required installers to sign a one-year independent contractor agreement containing a “non-compete clause” that prohibited them from providing installation services for competitors. The contract also required installers to respond to service requests within two hours. Installers had to provide their own hand tools, transportation, cell phones, and laptops, but used cable obtained from Time Warner. They could work any day or time consented to by customers. The company paid the installers by the job and did not withhold taxes or provide any benefits.
The Bureau of Workers Compensation (BWC) audit. The BWC audited the company to decide whether it had paid the correct amount of workers’ compensation premiums for all of its employees. The BWC examined the company’s treatment of workers it had hired to install cable as independent contractors. Concluding that the company exercised “too much control” over the installers, the BWC determined that the installers were actually employees for workers’ compensation purposes and the company owed $346,817 in unpaid premiums for the employees. The company unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the agency and the Tenth District Court of Appeals and the case ended up before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court review. For purposes of the workers’ compensation program, Ohio law provides that the controlling determination in whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is “who had the right to control the manner or means of doing the work.” There is not a bright-line test for making such a determination, however. Instead, the Ohio Supreme Court explained, the BWC must consider a set of factors related to who controls the manner or means of the work. Those factors include:
- Whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer
- Whether the workers are engaged in an independent business
- The method of payment
- The length of employment
- Agreements or contracts in place
- Whether the parties believed they were creating an employment relationship
- Who provides tools for the job
- The skill required for the job
- The details and quality of the work
The Ohio Supreme Court’s role was to determine whether the BWC relied upon “some evidence” when reviewing each of the factors to reach its conclusion that the company controlled the manner or means of the installers’ work. The Court concluded that most, although not all, of the BWC’s conclusions were supported by at least some evidence and upheld the BWC’s decision. The factors and evidence that received the most attention from the Court included:
- Independence from the company. The installers’ public image when working identified them as being with the company; they all wore the same badges and vests, and some had signs on their vehicles with the company’s name.
- Method of payment. The company controlled the rate of payment, which was nonnegotiable and did not include a bid process as is typical for independent contractors. The “take-it-or-leave-it” approach indicated control over the installers.
- Length of employment. The installers had an ongoing relationship with the company and did not advertise their services to the community at large.
- Agreements and contracts. The company’s non-compete clause restricted the installers’ freedom to work and indicated a measure of control over the workers.
- Skill requirements. The BWC concluded that the minimal skill required to install the cable was not high or unique, and the company offered no facts to show that the installers required specialized skills.
Disagreement on the court. Two of the Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy and DeWine, dissented from the majority opinion. Their primary point of disagreement was that there was no evidence supporting the BWC decision. The evidence instead suggested that the company controlled only how the installers were paid, and the installers controlled the manner and means of doing their work. The dissent criticized the BWC for jumping to a quick conclusion that the company’s true motives were “to evade the obligations associated with having employees.”
What does this mean for farm employers? Farms often rely on independent contractors for seasonal and intermittent help with work like baling hay, running equipment, and doing books. Are these workers true independent contractors or are they employees? That is a fact dependent question, but we can imagine many scenarios where the farm has a majority of the control over the mode and manner of such work. Farms are subject to Ohio’s workers’ compensation law, so a farm could be audited by the BWC just as the company in this case was and could see similar results for misclassifying employees as independent contractors.
Implications for all businesses. The case carries several implications that raise needs for businesses that use independent contractors:
- Recognize that state and federal tests can differ. Many are familiar with the IRS test for independent contractors but note that the Ohio Supreme Court applied its unique Ohio test for determining independent contractors in regard to BWC premiums. State and federal laws differ. It’s important to apply the appropriate test for the situation.
- Review the manner and means factors for each independent contractor. For each worker claimed as an independent contractor, review the nine factors listed above to ensure that the business isn’t exerting the most control over the manner and means of the work. Where possible, adjust practices that give the business unnecessary control over how and when the work is performed. Consider these:
- Use employees to do the regular work of the business and independent contractors for high-skill or unique tasks.
- Ensure that the business isn’t controlling the public image of the workers. The workers should not be branded or identifiable with the business through clothing, name badges, hats, vehicles, etc.
- Require independent contractors to submit bids or proposals on the amount and method of payment for their work.
- Avoid using the same independent contractor for an extended period of time and ensure that the worker’s services are available to other businesses.
- Don’t restrict the worker’s freedom to work for others, especially via a contract or agreement.
- Maintain records and evidence of the work situation. The BWC need only have “some evidence” that the nine factors indicate a high level of control over the mode or manner of work, but the business may offer facts and evidence to the contrary. Good recordkeeping is imperative. A business that can’t provide stronger facts and evidence in favor of the business, like the company in this case, might be at risk of an employee classification by the BWC.
While there are benefits of using independent contractors to meet labor needs, farms must recognize the associated risk of misclassification. For workers' compensation purposes, farms can avoid those risks by ensuring that it is the independent contractor, not the farm, who controls the "manner or means" of doing the work. Read the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in State ex rel. Ugicom Enterprises v. Morrison here.