New Independent Contractor Rule Coming Soon!

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis. Esq. Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

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

What’s happening for ag at the Ohio Statehouse?

Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture.  All of the proposals remain in committee but may see further action after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration at the Statehouse.

Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture

Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the  proposal, which contains three components:

• Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture.  The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
• Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures. 
• Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.

House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain

A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee.  HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23.  Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.

House Bill 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and it received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16.  The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate.  The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:

• March 21 as “Agriculture Day.”
• October 12 as “Farmer’s Day.”
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as “FFA Week.”
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers

A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee.  HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes.  The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base.  The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences.  While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13.  Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.

House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities  

Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek).  HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment.  HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.

House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development   

A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form.  HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.”  The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.

House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property

 Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act.  Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.

Help Wanted: Recruiting During a Labor Shortage

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agriculture and Resource Law

Over the past few months, we have all heard about the labor shortage affecting American employers in various industries all over the country.  Now is as difficult a time as ever to find employees.  As an agricultural employer, it may be easy to relax some of your established policies and procedures when going through the employee recruitment process, especially while navigating the labor shortage.  But, as an employer, you are obligated to comply with state and federal law regardless of the labor climate.  Below we review a few important concepts to help refresh employers of their obligations under Ohio and federal law when they engage in the recruitment process. 

Walking the fine line of job descriptions.  One of the first thing an employer should do when beginning the recruitment process is to define the job qualifications in order to identify the minimum qualifications an employer is willing to accept in a new employee.  However, some care should be taken in this step.  If an employer has unrealistic expectations, it may make it difficult to fill the position.  Then, out of frustration or urgency, an employer will fill the position with someone that does not meet the stated minimum qualifications.  This creates a problem if an employer ends up hiring an employee that does not meet the minimum qualifications after previously rejecting other applicants with similar qualifications.  Those rejected applicants may have a lawsuit for employment discrimination.  On the other hand, if an employer’s written expectations are too low, an employer may have a difficult time defending its decision to reject an individual who met the stated minimum qualifications while the employer searched for someone who met what the employer was really looking for.  An employer needs to be consistent and stick to its stated qualifications when making employment decisions or risk opening itself up to employment discrimination lawsuits.  

Defining the essential functions of the job is essential.  Creating a comprehensive and detailed job description and a list of job qualifications helps employers narrow its applicant pool and provides a basis to make certain employment decisions.  It also helps employers define the essential functions of a job which helps employers stay compliant with Ohio and federal employment laws.  For example, The American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) makes it clear that an employer does not need to employ someone who cannot perform the essential functions of the job.  This does not mean that every function performed by an employee is “essential.”  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) makes it clear that marginal functions of the job are not “essential.”  Some of the factors that help determine what functions are essential include: 

• The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; 
• Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants; 
• The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; and 
• The consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function.    

Job Applications.  Most employers understand it is unlawful to discriminate against employees or potential employees based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.  On job applications, however, employers need to be careful when asking what may seem like innocent questions that relate to things like age, religion, national origin, marital status, children, criminal history, U.S. citizenship, medical history, or disability.  Asking these types of questions may lead to a finding that an employer engaged in a discriminatory practice.  For example, it is permissible to ask if an applicant is legally permitted to work in the United States; it is impermissible to ask where someone was born.  It is permissible to ask if someone is able to perform the essential functions of the job; it is impermissible to ask if someone has any health issues that would prevent them from doing the job.  These are just a couple examples of the types of questions an employer is allowed to ask on an application.  Employers should consult with an attorney to make sure that all questions on an application are compliant with state and federal standards.  

Pre-employment drug and alcohol testing.  There are no laws that prohibit employers from testing its employees for drugs and alcohol.  However, there are laws that regulate the timing of such tests.  To help employers, the ADA separates testing into two categories, “pre-offer” testing and “post-offer” testing.  In the pre-offer stage, an employer may test a potential employee for any illegal drug use but cannot test for alcohol.  Illegal drug use is not protected under the law.  However, employers need to be careful from automatically disregarding all employees that test positive for controlled substances.  A person with chronic back pain may have a perfectly legal reason for having certain substances in their system, especially if they are under a strict pain management program.  Once an employer learns of an employee’s legal justifications for certain controlled substances, an employer cannot use the information as basis to refuse employment, terminate, or discipline an employee.  In the post-offer stage, employers are allowed to test for alcohol.  Testing for alcohol is considered a medical examination, and employers are only allowed to subject their employees to medical examinations once an offer of an employment has been given.  Regardless of which type of testing an employer seeks to use, employers must be consistent in the way they implement such testing.  Testing must be done in a non-discriminatory manner, meaning an employer must make all employees take the same test or forgo any testing at all. 

Background Checks.  Ohio does not prohibit the use of background or credit checks on potential employees.  There are, however, several regulations that relate to employers that use background or credit checks.  First, background and credit checks are subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) which requires employers to obtain written consent from the applicant, give the applicant notice of the employer’s intention to reject their application based on the results of the background check, and notify the applicant of any final decision to reject the applicant because of the background check.  Additionally, employers need to be careful about how they handle prior arrests and convictions.  If an employer does decide to reject an application based on any prior arrests or convictions, the employer needs to consider the nature of the job, the nature and severity of the offense, and how much time has passed since the offense.  For example, if a farmer is looking to hire a general farm laborer, a conviction for driving under the influence from 10 years ago may not be sufficient grounds to reject an application.  Unless the position requires the applicant to drive on a consistent basis, the offense may not really be related to the nature of the job.  Furthermore, enough time may have passed that would make it discriminatory to reject an application for this type of offense.  

Interviewing.  Interviews are ripe for potential discrimination claims because they are less structured than applications and insert the “human element.”  When conducting an interview, employers should stick to a script.  A script will help an employer avoid potential discrimination lawsuits and gives the employer the ability to carefully select its interview questions.  When asking questions, an employer is not liable for any information that an applicant willingly provides.  For example, if the questions is “tell me about yourself” and an applicant provides information about a medical condition or their family, an employer cannot be found liable for any discriminatory practices.  An employer cannot, however, use the information to make any employment decisions.  If an applicant is providing too much information, it is best for the employer to quickly move on to the next subject to avoid eliciting any other information that could be used against an employer in a discrimination lawsuit.   

Hiring.  When deciding to choose one applicant over another, employers need to have a fair and equal system in place.  Employers need to be able to point to a specific procedure that demonstrates an employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for choosing on applicant over another.  For example, if one applicant is more qualified than another for a job, it is easy to prove a nondiscriminatory purpose for hiring the more qualified candidate.  If there are two equally qualified candidates, it is even more important to have a nondiscriminatory procedure in place when deciding between the two applicants. For example, an employer could have a policy in place that states if two equally qualified candidates apply for the same position, the candidate that applies first shall be given the job offer.  

New hire reporting.  All employers are required by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees by filing out Form I-9.  Ohio employers are also required by the Ohio Department of Family and Job Services (“ODFJS”) to report the hiring, rehiring, and return to work of paid employees.  The new hire report must be completed within 20 days after the employee is hired or returned to work.  

Conclusion.  In these trying and difficult times, compliance with state and federal regulations may be the last thing on an employer’s mind.  However, these laws are always in effect, regardless of circumstance.  Complying with state and federal laws will only help employers defend any employment decisions and to avoid potential employment discrimination lawsuits. 

References and Resources

Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 – Civil Rights Commission

Americans with Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

The Ag Law Harvest

Although many of us are quarantined at home these days, the gears of the legal world are still turning.  Here’s our gathering of recent notable news and legal developments:

Our Farm Office is open Monday night!  Join us for the Farm Office’s live online office hours this Monday night from 8—9:30 p.m.  Our team of experts will provide updates on the Paycheck Protection Program and the dairy economy and discuss COVID-19 macro-economic and export impacts, BWC dividends, property tax concerns, potential legal issues arising from COVID-19, and other issues you want to discuss.  Register at https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.   

What’s the deal with dicamba?  Our partner, the National Agricultural Law Center, is hosting a free webinar on dicamba litigation on Wednesday, April 15 at noon EST.  “The Deal with Dicamba:  An Overview of Dicamba Related Litigation,” will feature attorney Brigit Rollins, who will review each of the dicamba lawsuits, the claims made by the plaintiffs, and what the outcome of each suit could mean for dicamba use in the United States.  Go here to learn more.

Walmart sued for employee’s COVID-19 death.  We’ve been wondering when we’d start seeing COVID-19 lawsuits, and the answer is now.  On Monday, the estate of a Walmart employee in Illinois who died from COVID-19 sued the company for negligence and wrongful death.  The complaint alleges that Walmart failed to properly clean the store or provide employees with masks, gloves, antibacterial wipes and other protective equipment, knew that employees were exhibiting COVID-19 signs and symptoms, and did not screen new employees for COVID-19.  A second employee at the same store has also died of the virus.  Read the complaint here.

Shell eggs go to market.  The FDA issued guidance that eases up packaging and labeling requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic for shell eggs sold directly to consumers in retail food establishments.  The agency explained that it made the change because plenty of shell eggs are available to meet increased consumer demands, but properly labeled retail packaging for the eggs is not.  See the guidance here.

EPA’s glyphosate approval is challenged.  Glyphosate, used in the weed killer Roundup, is in the news again.  This time, the controversy surrounds the EPA’s decision in January 2020 to allow glyphosate to continue being used in the interim while the agency conducts its mandatory 15-year re-approval review.  Although EPA has yet to make its re-approval decision, two groups of plaintiffs have petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an invalidation of the EPA’s decision allowing continued use in the interim.  Plaintiffs argue that the decision violates both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Endangered Species Act because the EPA has not gathered enough information to prove that glyphosate is safe for humans, the environment, and endangered species.  You can read the petitions here and here, and EPA’s interim decision here.

No rehearing for RFS litigation.  We reported previously that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held the EPA in violation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) when it granted RFS blending waivers to three small refineries.  While the Trump administration did not appeal the court’s decision, two of the oil refiners requested a rehearing before the full panel of Tenth Circuit judges.  This week, those requests were rejected by the Tenth Circuit, starting a 90-day period during which the refiners may petition for a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

ODNR suspends hunting and fishing license sales for non-residents.  The Ohio Department of Natural Resources announced this week that it is “temporarily suspending the sale of non-resident hunting and fishing licenses until further notice” to further discourage travel into the state.  ODNR has no set date to lift the suspension; it will be in place as long as state COVID-19 orders dictate.  Read ODNR’s press release here.

BWC gives dividends and deferrals.  The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation board decided yesterday to pay dividends to employers for BWC premiums to the tune of up to $1.6 billion.  Checks will go out to employers later in April, and will equal approximately 100% of the BWC premiums paid in their 2018 policy years.   The agency is also allowing employers to delay unpaid premium installments due for March through May until June 1, 2020 and will not lapse coverage or assess penalties for amounts not paid due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  See this FAQ for details.