Se Habla Espanol
Category Archives: Employee Status
When Should I Hire An Employee Misclassification Attorney?
In the ever-evolving landscape of employment law, the issue of employee misclassification is a significant concern for both workers and employers. Misclassification occurs when workers are incorrectly categorized, often as independent contractors rather than employees, a distinction that can have profound implications on wages, benefits, and job protections. Navigating these legal complexities can be daunting, and knowing when to seek the assistance of an employee misclassification attorney is crucial for…
What Are the Most Common Types of Employee Misclassification?
Employee misclassification is a pervasive issue in the modern workplace, affecting both workers and employers. Misclassification occurs when an employer incorrectly categorizes an employee as an independent contractor or designates them as exempt. This improper classification can have significant legal and financial repercussions, impacting wages, benefits and protections under labor laws. Miller Shah LLP assists employees and employers navigate these complex issues. What is Employee Misclassification? Employee misclassification refers to…
What is the Difference Between Exempt and Non-exempt Employees?
While the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides overtime and minimum wage protections for many employees, certain categories of workers are exempt from these protections. The distinction between exempt and non-exempt employees is a critical aspect of employment law impacting workers' rights and employers' responsibilities. Exempt employee misclassification can deprive workers of essential benefits, such as overtime pay, rest breaks and minimum wage protections. If you believe you have been…
Grubhub Driver Ruled an Employee, Not Independent Contractor
On March 30, 2023, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley held that Grubhub Inc. (“Grubhub” or the “Company”) wrongly classified former delivery driver Raef Lawson as an independent contractor instead of as an employee, in violation of California’s minimum wage law. Throughout the eight-year litigation, Grubhub argued that its delivery drivers fall within the business-to-business exemption to the three-pronged classification test outlined in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, that allows…
PA Judge Denies Cannabis Company’s Motion to Dismiss Delivery Driver Misclassification Claims
On March 7, 2023, the Honorable William S. Stickman IV of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss filed by medical cannabis company FarmaceuticalRX LLC (“FRX” or the “Company”) in a class action lawsuit alleging the Company misclassified delivery drivers as independent contractors and failed to pay overtime wages. In August 2022, FRX delivery drivers Clint Goodenow, Jason Hummel, Alex Fitzgerald, Brian DeMarco, and Mark Williams (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed…
FLSA: Ninth Circuit Holds L.A. Homecare Workers are Eligible for Overtime Compensation
On November 4, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that for the purposes of the Fair Labor Stands Act (“FLSA”), Los Angeles County (the “County”) qualifies as a joint employer of In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) providers and is therefore liable for failing to pay overtime compensation, partially reversing the Central District of California’s summary judgment order in favor of the…
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Blocks App Driver Ballot Initiatives
In a unanimous opinion issued on June 14, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it was an error for the Massachusetts Attorney General to certify two proposed ballot initiatives to redefine the employment classification of rideshare app drivers. The Court determined the initiatives contained at least two substantially distinct policy decisions, and that the lumping together of multiple policy questions does not allow voters to answer a single initiative…
Workers Seek Sanctions on Turf Farm
Workers of Briggs Traditional Turf Farm (“Briggs” or the “Farm”) have sought sanctions against their employer for misleading employees who could opt into a lawsuit against the Farm. The second amended complaint, filed on December 23, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleges that Briggs illegally and discriminately withheld overtime pay from workers with H-2A visas by purposely misrepresenting them as agricultural workers.…
Joint Task Force on Misclassification of Employees – Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry
Pennsylvania’s Joint Task Force on Misclassification of Employees (“Task Force”) held its fourth meeting of the year on April 22, 2022, the first in-person meeting since its assembly in January 2021. The Task Force is a bipartisan group of nominated volunteers representing business, labor, and government seeking to publicize a comprehensive understanding of worker misclassification and its consequences. This meeting occurred a month after the Task Force released its Annual Report, which…
Wal-Mart Overtime Suit Denied Summary Judgment
On January 24, 2022, U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo denied Wal-Mart’s motion for partial summary judgement in Sundel Quiles, et al. v. Wal-Mart. The action arises from allegations that Wal-Mart misclassified the Plaintiffs as overtime-exempt employees in violation of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Wal-Mart sought to limit the claims that Plaintiffs could bring to trial by arguing that even if Wal-Mart…
Contact
Miller Shah LLP
While this website provides general information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer. To schedule a meeting with an attorney, please call 866-540-5505 or complete the intake form to email us.
866-300-7367
Fax number
866-540-5505
Telephone
Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing contact information, users acknowledge and give explicit consent to be contacted via the methods of communication provided, including SMS. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. Reply STOP to opt out.
NUVEW | Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved | Accessibility Notice | Privacy Policy