Pennsylvania Enacts Bill Targeting The Misclassification Of Construction Workers
Time 3 Minute Read

On October 13, Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell (R) signed the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (H.B. 400), which sets forth a number of prerequisites for classifying construction industry workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees.  Under the Act, the consequences for misclassifying a worker as an independent contractor are severe.  The Act is part of a large trend, as similar legislation has been enacted or is being considered in a number of other states.

Under the Act, an individual who performs services in the construction industry for pay is an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, and improper classification of employees only if: (1) the individual has a written contract to perform such services; (2) the individual is free from control or direction over the performance of such services both under the contract of service and in fact; and (3) as to such services, the individual is “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”  An individual fits this last category only if:

  1. the individual possesses the essential tools, equipment, and other assets necessary to perform the services independent of the person for whom the services are performed;
  2. the individual’s arrangement with the person for whom the services are performed is such that the individual will realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of performing the services;
  3. the individual performs the services through a business in which the individual has a proprietary interest;
  4. the individual maintains a business location that is separate from the location of the person for whom the services are being performed;
  5. the individual previously performed the same or similar services for any other person in accordance with criteria (1) through (4) while free from direction or control over the performance of the services, or, the individual holds himself out to other persons as available and able, and in fact is available and able, to perform the same or similar services in accordance with criteria (1) through (4) while free from direction or control over performance of the services; and
  6. the individual maintains liability insurance of at least $50,000 during the term of the contract.

The Act broadly defines “construction” as erection, reconstruction, demolition, alteration, modification, custom fabrication, building, assembling, site preparation, or repair work done on any real property or premises under contract, whether or not the work is for a public body and paid for from public funds.  Under the Act, each misclassified worker is considered a separate offense, and administrative penalties may be up to $1,000 for the first violation, and $2,500 for each subsequent violation.  The Act also makes it a misdemeanor for a contractor to intentionally misclassify an employee as an independent contractor, and violations of the Act can lead to stop-work orders requiring the cessation of work by misclassified individuals within 24 hours.  The Act will take effect 120 days after enactment.

The passage of this Act is part of a growing movement by states to crack down on what is perceived by lawmakers to be widespread worker misclassification, particularly in the construction industry, but also more generally.  Employers should pay close attention to pending and proposed state legislation and seek the advice of counsel in order to determine how such legislation might affect their worker classification practices.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 7 Minute Read

On September 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”) entered judgment in favor of 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) in Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., putting to rest a class action lawsuit 7-Eleven has been defending for more than seven years regarding allegations that its franchisees were actually employees of 7-Eleven, based on the application of the Massachusetts independent contractor statute.

Time 2 Minute Read

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is expected to propose new rules on independent contractor classification and overtime entitlement requirements in the coming weeks.  The proposals would alter the qualifications for certain employees to receive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they work in excess of 40 hours in one week.

Time 5 Minute Read

A critical ruling in the world of franchising, in Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2021 WL 4078727 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California applied the so-called Borello test to find that franchisees were independent contractors, instead of employees, for purposes of their claims for unpaid business expense reimbursements under California’s Labor Code section 2802.

Time 5 Minute Read

Last month, a judge out of the Alameda County Superior Court ruled California’s Proposition 22 unconstitutional, constituting a significant legal obstacle to this young statute.

Proposition 22 (formally the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 7448, et seq.) was a ballot initiative passed by a majority of California voters in the November 2020 election, which primarily aimed to classify application-based transportation and delivery companies’ drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Proposition 22 arose in response to Assembly Bill 5, 2019 legislation codifying the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which created a new “ABC” test for determining whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors. (More information on AB 5 can be found in this previous Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives post.)

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page