Listen to this post

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule (“Final Rule”) defining the term independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), rescinding the previous definition of independent contractor outlined in 2021 (“2021 Rule”). The Final Rule establishes a six-factor test based on the economic reality of the worker and potential employer relationship and may have a substantial impact on a number of industries.

Background

Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay and other benefits. Independent contractors are not, though they typically have greater flexibility to set their own schedules. 

In 2021, the DOL published a five-factor test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These factors included the nature and degree of control over the work and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, which carried a heavier weight in the analysis of whether a worker was an independent contractor. Other factors that weighed less in the analysis were: the level of skill required to do the work, the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer, and whether the work was part of an integrated unit of production.

On October 13, 2022, the DOL published a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” on employee and independent contractor classification under the FLSA, with a proposal to rescind the 2021 Rule. After receiving comments regarding the 2022 proposed rule, the DOL finalized its proposal with some modifications. 

New Independent Contractor Rule

With the Final Rule, the DOL has abandoned the “core factors” set forth in the 2021 Rule, returning to a   “totality-of-the-circumstances” analysis of the economic reality test. Under this analysis, each of the factors should be weighed equally and  are considered in “view of the economic reality of the whole activity.” The six factors include:

  • Opportunity for Profit or Loss Depending on Managerial Skill
  • Investments by the Worker and the Potential Employer
  • Degree of Permanence of the Work Relationship
  • Nature and Degree of Control
  • Extent to Which the Work Performed is an Integral Part of the Potential Employer’s Business
  • Skill and Initiative

These factors are not exhaustive, and other factors may be considered when those factors are “relevant to the ultimate question of whether workers are economically dependent on the employer for work or in business for themselves.”

Key Takeaways

The Final Rule differs significantly from the prior DOL guidance and the 2021 Rule. Under the 2021 Rule, employers would focus primarily on the two core factors – control over the work – and opportunity for profit or loss – when classifying workers. Now, as noted above, the Final Rule applies a multifactor, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to evaluate whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the FLSA. 

The totality-of-the-circumstances test will require more time and resources to apply. Employers with 1099 workers should carefully review the new rule and make necessary changes to their classification policies and practices, accordingly. Employers should also be mindful of any state-specific rules that may differ from the Final Rule.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jarad M. Lucan Jarad M. Lucan

Jarad is chair of Shipman’s Employment and Labor Practice Group, where he practices on behalf of both public and private sector clients.  Jarad has successfully represented employers in grievance arbitration matters, prohibited practice proceedings before the State Board of Labor Relations, and unfair…

Jarad is chair of Shipman’s Employment and Labor Practice Group, where he practices on behalf of both public and private sector clients.  Jarad has successfully represented employers in grievance arbitration matters, prohibited practice proceedings before the State Board of Labor Relations, and unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board.  He has also represented employers in cases involving claims of discrimination and retaliation before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and State and Federal Courts.

Photo of Rauchell Beckford-Anderson Rauchell Beckford-Anderson

Rauchell is a member of the firm’s Employer Defense and Labor Relations practice group. She represents employers in all employment law matters before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and state and federal court. Her experience…

Rauchell is a member of the firm’s Employer Defense and Labor Relations practice group. She represents employers in all employment law matters before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and state and federal court. Her experience includes defending public and private sector employers in employment-related litigation including wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and wage claims.

Photo of Sarah N. Niemiroski Sarah N. Niemiroski

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal…

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal courts and agencies with respect to employment matters ranging from employment discrimination and wrongful termination to tortious interference, breach of contract, and wage and hour claims.