DOL Signals Loosening in Regulatory Stance on Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employer Liability

Alexandra D. Thaler and Justin Engel

The federal Department of Labor signaled this week that it is reversing course on Obama-era policies that had resulted in the risk of expansive employer liability with respect to worker classification and joint employment.  The DOL’s withdrawal of two controversial guidance documents from 2015 and 2016 is one in a series of steps indicating that the Trump administration seeks to make good on campaign promises to loosen regulations on employers.

In 2015 the DOL had articulated its view of the definition of an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of independent contractor misclassification.  In an informal guidance known as an Administrator’s Interpretation (AI), the DOL reviewed the application of the so-called “economic realities” test used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.  This multi-factor test is much broader than the common law “control” test, and as a result it sweeps more relationships under the label of “employment.”  The DOL thus concluded that application of the test results in the finding that “most workers are employees under the FLSA.”  Although the DOL purported to rely on established precedent in reaching this conclusion, its clear message to employees and businesses was that the Department would take the broadest possible view of employment relationships in investigation and enforcement proceedings going forward.  Accordingly, the withdrawal of the guidance sends the message that the DOL will be softening its stance on this issue.

As we wrote at the time, in a subsequent Administrator’s Interpretation issued in early 2016, the DOL advocated an expansive definition of joint employment.  The DOL asserted that joint employment could be either “horizontal” or “vertical,” and may exist when “an employee is employed by two (or more) employers and the employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for that employee under the law.”   While the AI’s description of “horizontal” joint employment largely conformed to the established approach, which looks to the common law “control” test to determine whether an employee is sufficiently controlled by two or more employers for joint employment to arise, the DOL’s definition of “vertical” joint employment represented a significant departure from this precedent.  According to the guidance, “vertical” joint employment “exists where the employee has an employment relationship with one employer (typically a staffing agency, subcontractor, labor provider, or other intermediary employer) and the economic realities show that he or she is economically dependent on, and thus employed by, another entity involved in the work.”  By announcing that vertical joint employment status should be evaluated using the multi-factor “economic realities” test, the DOL clearly intended to broaden the circumstances in which employers could be found jointly and severally liable for FLSA violations.  Thus, the DOL’s withdrawal of the 2016 AI signals a return to the narrow common law focus on control as the touchstone for determining whether joint employment exists.

While it remains to be seen what specific impact the withdrawals of these interpretations will have, employers that had been wary of the Obama administration’s broad pronouncements in the area of wage and hour enforcement, and business groups that had urged the withdrawal of these interpretations, will welcome this change.   These and other recent announcements—including the proposed 2018 federal budget, which contains a dramatic 21% funding cut for the DOL and proposes the merger of the OFCCP into the EEOC while also significantly cutting the OFCCP’s budget—may mean that the regulatory landscape for employers will experience significant loosening in the months and years to come.  However, it is important to keep in mind that other regulatory or even Congressional action in other areas relating to the employer-employee relationship (most notably a possible increase to the minimum salary requirement for exempt employees on which the DOL will soon solicit public comment once again, according to a recent statement by Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta), may yet result in significant impact on businesses and individuals.

Overtime Update: Will the Texas Decision Invalidating the DOL Overtime Rule Survive and What Should Employers Do Now?

By Kenneth M. Bello

Now that a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction staying implementation of the new DOL regulations revising salary thresholds for determining application of the white collar minimum wage and overtime pay exemptions, otherwise slated to go into effect on December 1st, what happens next, and how quickly will that occur?  Here are the possibilities.

  • An interlocutory appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. How that comes out is anyone’s guess, but the case is vulnerable in its analysis, as detailed below.
  • Congressional Action that renders the decision academic. On September 28, 2016, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6094, titled Regulatory Relief for Small Business, Schools, and Nonprofits ActThe bill would have changed the effective date of the revised overtime regulations from December 1, 2016 until June 1, 2017.  With a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, there is a very real possibility that some form of law will be filed and passed in 2017.  The question of course is what will that bill look like – for examples, will it exempt “small business”, and will it change the minimum salary amounts and/or remove automatic indexing?

Read more

EEOC Publishes Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021

By Martha J. Zackin

EEOC recently published its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) for Fiscal Years 2017-2021, in which it outlines the areas in which it intends to focus its strategic litigation and enforcement activities in the coming years.  Not surprisingly, the EEOC indicates that it intends to expend significant resources on understanding and protecting temporary employees and members of the gig workforce.

As described in the SEP, EEOC’s substantive priorities for Fiscal Years 2017-2021 are: Read more

Final Rule and Guidance Issued Implementing Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

On August 25, 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) issued a Final Rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order 13673, the Fair Play and Safe Workplaces Executive Order (also known as the “blacklisting rule”).  The Department of Labor (DOL) also issued Final Guidance to assist the FAR Council and federal contracting agencies in the implementation of EO 13673.

Signed on July 31, 2014, and as described here, EO 13673 requires prospective and current federal contractors and subcontractors to disclose all violations of federal labor laws that result in administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, or civil judgments. The Order also requires contractors and subcontractors to disclose specific information to workers each pay period regarding their wages and prohibits contractors from requiring that their workers sign arbitration agreements that encompass claims of sexual assault or harassment.

The Final Rule is effective October 25, 2016, which is earlier than had been expected. Fortunately, certain obligations under the Final Rule are now phased in, meaning that contractors and subcontractors have time in which to come up to full compliance. Contracts valued at or under $500,000 are excluded from the Final Rule, as are subcontracts for goods that are “commercially available off-the-shelf” items.

Disclosure. When fully implemented, contractors will be required to disclose violations of fourteen federal workplace laws from the previous three years – including laws addressing wage and hour, safety and health, collective bargaining, family and medical leave, and civil rights protections. The provision of EO 13673 requiring contractors to disclose violations of “equivalent” state laws has been paused, pending the DOL’s release of a comprehensive list of state laws covered by the Order; when released, this list will be subject to notice and comment before becoming effective.

Certain information pertaining to violations contractors disclose will be made public. These include: (1) the law violated; (2) the case number, charge number, docket number, or other unique identifier; (3) the date of the decision finding a violation; and (4) the name of the court, arbitrator, agency, board or commission that rendered the decision. Any other information provided voluntarily or at the request of the contracting officer (including information pertaining to mitigating factors and steps taken to achieve compliance) will not be made public unless the contractor chooses to make it so.

The process by which violations will be assessed is set forth in the Final Rule and Guidance. Initially, a new type of government official – an Agency Labor Compliance Advisor (ALCA) – will review the nature of the violations, to determine if any are serious, willful, repeated, or pervasive. After weighing any such violations against the severity of the violations, the size of the contractor, and any mitigating factors, the ALCA will provide his or her recommendation to the contracting officer.  As before, the decision to award or extend a contract rests with the contracting officer, who must determine whether the contractor is responsible and has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

Pay Transparency. The Final Rule also requires contractors to provide workers with detailed wage statements every pay period, which must include: (1) total number of hours worked per pay period; (2) any overtime hours worked; (3) rate of pay; (4) gross pay; and (5) itemized additions to or deductions from gross pay. Contractors must also provide employees with written notice of their status as exempt or non-exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Workers treated as independent contractors must be notified, in writing, of this status.

Arbitration. In addition, the Final Rule prohibits pre-dispute arbitration agreements that cover claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of claims of sexual assault or harassment. These disputes may be arbitrated, but only by voluntary consent given after any such dispute arises.

Implementation Schedule. The Final Rule sets forth a “phased-in” reporting requirement as follows (and as summarized by DOL here):

  1. September 12, 2016: Preassessmentbegins, through which current or prospective contractors may come to DOL for a voluntary assessment of their labor compliance history, in anticipation of bids on future contracts but independent of any specific acquisition.
  2. October 25, 2016: Mandatory disclosure and assessment of labor law compliance begins for all prime contractors under consideration for contracts with a total value greater than or equal to $50 million. At first, the reporting disclosure period is limited to one (1) year and will gradually increase each year to a maximum disclosure period of three (3) years by October 25, 2018. Also, contractors and subcontractors whose contracts are valued at more than $1,000,000 are prohibited from requiring employees to sign pre-dispute arbitration clauses covering claims arising out of Title VII or claims for sexual assault or harassment.
  3. January 1, 2017: The Paycheck Transparency clause takes effect, requiring contractors to provide wage statements, notice of overtime status, and notice of any independent contractor relationship to their covered workers.
  4. April 25, 2017: The total contract value threshold for prime contracts requiring disclosure and assessment of labor law compliance drops to $500,000.
  5. October 25, 2017: Mandatory assessment begins for all subcontractors under consideration for subcontracts with a total value greater than or equal to $500,000 (other than subcontracts for commercially available off-the-shelf items).

Action Items. Even with a phased-in implementation schedule, there is much to be done.  For example:

  1. Current or prospective contractors should decide whether to participate in the DOL’s preassessment process. According to information provided by DOL (here), using the published Final Guidance, if a contractor that has been assessed by the DOL as responsible subsequently submits a bid, the contracting officer and the ALCA may use the DOL’s assessment that the contractor has a satisfactory record of labor law compliance unless additional labor law violations have been disclosed.
  2. Contractors (and subcontractors) should begin developing and implementing processes for capturing information required by the Final Rule.
  3. Existing arbitration agreements should be reviewed for compliance.
  4. Existing training and compliance programs should be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, or new programs developed. A well-educated workforce can help minimize the risk of violations that must be reported

Bello Welsh Partner Quoted in Law360 Article

Bello Welsh partner, Ken Bello, was quoted in an article about the new Massachusetts Pay Equity Law.  The article is posted on Law360, here, and below with permission:

How Mass. Employers Should Prep For New Pay Equity Law

By Brian Amaral

Law360, Boston (August 11, 2016, 4:40 PM ET) — Massachusetts’ sweeping new law against gender pay inequality doesn’t go into effect for another two years, but employment attorneys in the Bay State are already preparing for a new regulatory regime that experts say will likely result in broad revisions to hiring policies and an increase in lawsuits.

The Act to Establish Pay Equity, passed by a Democratic Legislature and signed on Aug. 1 by the state’s moderate Republican governor, takes aim at a stubborn pay gap: Women make up nearly half the workers in the commonwealth but earn only 82 percent of what men do, according to the Massachusetts Equal Pay Coalition, which includes the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women and the Women’s Bar Association, among other groups.

The law broadens the definition of comparable work, narrows the acceptable reasons for pay disparities and explicitly permits class action suits. It also provides employers incentives to review their own policies, giving them an affirmative defense against claims of pay disparities by showing they’ve done a good-faith self-evaluation to understand and reasonably remedy gender pay gaps.

Along with a first-of-its-kind provision that prevents employers from asking prospective job candidates about their salary history, the new law is perhaps the most aggressive state law aimed at battling gender pay inequality in the nation, experts say.

Businesses have plenty of time to prepare: The law doesn’t go into effect until July 2018. But experts say it will have an immediate effect as employers start to prepare for its implementation, whether that happens through guidance from the attorney general or a trickle of court decisions.

“There’s going to be a lot of time for employers to decide, ‘Let’s look at our own pay practices,’” said Nina Kimball of Kimball Brousseau LLP, a plaintiff-side employment attorney who helped draft the law. “’Let’s see if we can take some proactive steps to change things.’”

Here are six things experts in the field say employment attorneys should do as the act goes into effect.

Ditch the Questions About Past Salaries

When the pay-equity law goes into effect in July 2018, Massachusetts will become the first state to outright ban employers from asking job candidates about their salary history. So some employers will have to change old habits, tear up job application forms and adjust their websites accordingly.

“This is a totally new type of tool that can help end the wage gap,” said Kimball. “If you’ve got prior discrimination in wages, asking about your salary history can bring it into your new job.”

Workers will still be allowed to volunteer that information, and employers will still be able to ask how much a potential employee is looking for, but that’s the extent of the wiggle room: When the law goes into effect, employers will have to stop asking.

Laurie Rubin, an employment attorney for Prince Lobel & Tye LLP, said it might be a good idea for employers to ditch the salary-ask question right away, even though it’s not banned for another two years. If employees after 2018 have a pay gap as a result of the practice of asking for salaries, the employers will be in noncompliance, Rubin said.

“They need to stop, I would say now, basing wages based on prior earnings,” Rubin said. “It’s only going to become a problem down the road.”

Take a Hard Look — And a Deep Breath

Another thing employers will have to start thinking about soon is the new affirmative defense in the bill. If faced with a pay-disparity or discrimination suit, an employer’s best shot might be to argue at the summary judgment stage that it has reviewed its salary practices in good faith and taken steps to address disparities.

If an employer has made a good-faith self-evaluation and can show reasonable progress toward eliminating gender-based wage differentials for comparable work, it can use that as an affirmative defense for three years.

“I do believe that will be a key element for employers to implement,” said Kenneth Bello of Bello Welsh LLP, who represents employers. “However, I would not be rushing to do that at this juncture. I would first be looking at, and thinking through, what should the elements of that self-evaluation be?”

Bello’s advice before diving into a study: Tread lightly.

“My first advice to clients has been and remains, ‘Take a deep breath,’” Bello said. “The law does not take effect until July 1, 2018. This provides a substantial amount of time for a company to think through and prepare for, first, how best to comply with the law, and second, to be able to defend itself in the event of a challenge.”

Attorney General Maura Healey, a vocal backer of the law, has been tasked with developing regulations on what those reviews will look like.

“The spirit of the new law requires that employers take a long, hard look at what is really going on in the workplace to uncover any gender issues that may exist, and to take affirmative steps to effectuate positive change,” said Lori Jodoin, the immediate past president of the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association and an attorney with plaintiff-side firm Rodgers Powers & Schwartz LLP. Rubin, of Prince Lobel, said that employers might want to consider conducting a pay disparity study with counsel to allow attorney-client privilege to shield the study from forced disclosure.

Lift Rules on Salary Secrecy

Under the law, employers will also not be able to prevent their employees from discussing their own salaries among each other, or asking one another how much they make. An employee can decline to reveal that information, and companies won’t be forced to reveal it.

But being able to ask is an important step to increase transparency, experts say. The new provision follows a trend around the country.

“Increasing pay transparency may help unearth more pay disparities in the workplace,” said Jodoin. “The revised statute encourages people to talk openly about what they earn, to consider whether their workplace is fair and equal, and to take affirmative steps to address inequality without fear of retaliation.”

Get Ready for More Lawsuits

Many bills passed by the Massachusetts Legislature prompt false predictions of an increase in lawsuits, said Bello of Bello Welsh. This one is different.

The law has several built-in incentives to encourage lawsuits, one of which is an explicit provision allowing class action lawsuits. The law allows for double damages and recovery of attorneys’ fees for the successful party.

It also extends the statute of limitations from one year to three years, and makes explicit that each paycheck that is unlawfully unequal is a new act of discrimination, rather than just the act of first setting the salary.

“I believe that come 2018 and beyond, there will be substantial litigation around multiple aspects of this law,” Bello said, adding: “Litigation of these cases will be enormously expensive as it will be factually intense, and the more fact-intensive a case is, the more difficult it is for an employer to get summary judgment.”

Except for the affirmative defense mentioned above, the cases probably won’t be resolved on summary judgment.

He added: “I do not know any attorney — management- or employee-oriented — who disagrees with the concept or the goal of the pay equity law. The issue is not the concept, but the means to achieve this goal. The pay equity law has incredible uncertainty in terms of its ultimate scope, and the costs of defending likely litigation will be enormous.”

Kimball, of Kimball & Brousseau, said: “I absolutely do believe that it will be used more, but I think it can also be used by employers to be proactive about instituting practices that are themselves going to help.”

Get Familiar With ‘Comparable’ Work

If it does come, the wave of litigation is still a few years away, leaving enough time to get familiar with what the law means by “comparable” work. Court decisions and policy guidance from the attorney general should help decide some of the operative terms.

Employers and attorneys should brush up on what the law says right away. The new law says that absent some exceptions, employers can’t pay any person less than employees of a different gender for comparable work, which is defined as “substantially similar in that it requires substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility and is performed under similar working conditions.”

Massachusetts has long barred employers from paying women less than men for comparable work — indeed, in the mid-1940s, it became the first state in the nation to pass a gender pay equality law, advocates say. But the way that case law had shaped the old statute, the law required courts to look first at whether two jobs shared “important common characteristics” before even answering whether it required a substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility, said Rubin of Prince Lobel.

The new law “uses a broader view,” Rubin said. “It rejects the earlier interpretation, which also required you to look at content. It’s sort of rejecting that approach and taking a broader approach.”

Bello is advising clients to do a related or even separate review of their practices beyond just the affirmative defense that the law allows for. “All of this starts with a review and analysis of what a company’s current compensation picture looks like now, particularly for positions that have the same title or substantially perform the same functions, even if they have different titles,” said Bello. “Ultimately, companies will be well-served by having documentation clearly reflecting why a compensation decision was made. When and if there was a challenge, an employer can say, ‘You want to know why Mary got more than Bob or Bob got more than Mary? Here is the memo.’”

But Bello added a note of caution: “That said, documentation can either be your best friend or your worst enemy. If it’s done well — and accurately — it’s extraordinarily helpful. If it’s done poorly, then it is more harmful than no documentation.”

And Forget ‘Any Other Factor’

While federal law allows employers to vary salaries based on “any other factor” besides gender, this one does not.

Employers are given explicit ways to vary salaries, narrowed to just six factors: seniority — without taking into account pregnancy or other family leave; a merit system; a system that measures quantity or quality of production, sales or revenue; the geographic

Update: Comment Period Extended for Proposed Rule for Federal Contractor Paid Sick Leave

By: Alexandra (Sasha) Thaler

The Department of Labor has extended the public comment period on its Proposed Rule for Federal Contractor Paid Sick Leave, based on public comments received and the interest that has been expressed in this matter.  The comment period was due to close on March 28; comments may now be submitted through April 12, 2016.

See our earlier post for more detail on the Proposed Rule.

Massachusetts: An Act to Establish Pay Equity

On January 28, the Massachusetts Senate passed S. 2119, titled “An Act to Establish Pay Equity” (the “Proposed Law”).   Touted by one of the Act’s co-sponsors as a way to “further close the wage gap between male and female workers in the Commonwealth,” the Proposed Law is claimed to ensure equal pay for comparable work by “establishing pay transparency and requiring fairness in hiring practices.” If enacted, the law virtually assures that there will be new litigation battles fought as employers defend against single plaintiff, class and collective actions asserting unlawful pay disparity. Beyond expensive litigation, another unfortunate consequence of the Proposed Law may be that many employers will assess and reassess whether it makes sense to continue to do business in Massachusetts.

Key provisions of the Proposed Law include:
•    Makes unlawful any disparity in the payment of wages (including benefits and other compensation) between different genders for “comparable work”, which is defined as work that is “substantially similar” in that it requires “substantially similar” skill, effort and responsibility, and is performed under “similar” working conditions. “Working conditions” is defined to include the “circumstances customarily taken into consideration in setting salary or wages, [such as] reasonable shift differentials, physical surroundings and hazards encountered by employees performing a job.” The Proposed Law provides no definition or further guidance as to what is meant by “substantially similar,” meaning that any such determination could only be made following an intensive and individualized factually inquiry in the context of litigated cases. Because of this, these cases will be extraordinarily expensive to defend.

•    Provides that employers can pay wages (including benefits and other compensation) that are different for comparable work if based upon (1) a “bona fide” seniority system; (2) a “bona fide” merit system[1]; (3) a “bona fide” system that measures quantity or quality of production or sales; (4) the geographic location in which a job is performed; (5) education, training, or experience, to the extent such factors are “reasonably related” to the particular job in question and “consistent with business necessity;” or (6) travel, if travel is a regular and necessary condition of the job. While some of these factors can be objectively measured (e.g., sales production), none of these factors permit differentials based on real workplace differentials influenced by qualitative performance and market differentials. In an economy that is driven by industries such as biotechnology (pharma and device), high technology, education and health care, many of these “exceptions” will have no practical application. As with the definition of comparable work, the one certainty is that there will be time consuming and expensive litigation over what these terms actually mean and their application to specific circumstances.

•    The Proposed Law requires pay equity for all compensation and benefits – it expressly provides that it covers “wages, including benefits or other compensation. This presumably includes bonuses, stock options or other equity awards, or any other economic benefit. This will have enormous impact for employers that attract new employees and/or reward top performers with periodic equity awards.

•    Provides that an aggrieved employee can bring a lawsuit, whether on his or her own behalf or on behalf of others (i.e, as a class or collective action). If the individual or group prevails, the employer is automatically liable for twice the lost wages (framed as liquidated damages), benefits and other compensation (with lost wages, benefits and other compensation calculated as the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid), and attorneys’ fees. A prevailing employer gets nothing.

•    There is a three year statute of limitations.

While The Attorney General also may also bring suit on behalf of one or more employees, it is far more likely that the litigation will be brought by the industry of plaintiffs’ attorneys who stand to be paid their attorneys’ fees, either by settlement or if they prevail .
An employer may defend against a claim if, within three years prior to the commencement of such claim, it completed a self-evaluation of its pay practices (which practices include wages, benefits, and other compensation) and can demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made towards eliminating any gender-based compensation differentials that may have been found. Amazingly, however, an employer that conducts a self-audit and discovers that one or more employees are overpaid in relation to other employees cannot reduce employees’ wages, benefits or other compensation to come into compliance.

In addition, if the Proposed Law is enacted as drafted, employers will not be allowed to:

•    Prohibit employees from discussing their own or other employees’ wages (this is already protected by federal law, specifically the National Labor Relations Act and, for federal contractors and subcontractors, Executive Order 13665).
•    Screen job applicants based on their wage history, or requesting or requiring an applicant, as a condition of being interviewed or continuing to be considered for an offer, disclose prior wage history. As with all other aspects of the Proposed Law, “wages” includes benefits and other compensation. This will make it very difficult to determine how to make a competitive offer to an individual.
•    Seek the compensation history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer, unless an offer of employment has been made and the prospective employee so authorizes, in writing.
•    Retaliate in any way against an employee exercising his or her rights under the Proposed Law.

Many employers obviously are concerned about the impact that this Proposed Law will have on their businesses. By way of example only, employers are concerned about the ability to attract talent at market rates that may be different than individuals already employed, as well as the myriad other circumstances where the Proposed Law may impede business decisions and expose them to costly and uncertain litigation. As the Proposed Law has not been enacted, for those employers who are concerned about it, now would be the time to contact industry associations, legislative representatives and any others with political involvement to raise their concerns about the negative consequences of this legislation as presently drafted.
[1] A published Federal Jury Instructions provides that in order to establish a bona fide merit system, an employer must demonstrate a “structured process under which employees are systematically evaluated according to established standards that are designed to determine the relative merits of their performance”. Such a definition defies the reality that an individual’s performance is measured in multiple ways, many of which are not easily measured (e.g., enthusiasm, commitment to a job, level of effort, etc.).

NLRB Declines to Assert Jurisdiction Over Religious School

By John F. Welsh

Over the past few years the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has been re-examining whether it can assert its jurisdiction over religious schools, universities and hospitals.  Recently, Bello Welsh LLP convinced the NLRB’s Division of Advice in Washington, D.C. that the NLRB lacked jurisdiction over our pro bono client, Nativity Preparatory School of Boston. The case is remarkable given that since April 2014, the NLRB has been expanding its jurisdiction inexorably over religious institutions based on its decision in .

Read more

Massachusetts Appeals Court Protects Staffing Companies – and their Clients

By Martha J. Zackin

In 2013, as reported here, a Massachusetts trial court upheld efforts by staffing companies and workers compensation insurers to close a loophole that allowed staffing-firm employees injured while providing services to a client company both to collect workers compensation benefits from their staffing company employer and to sue the client company.  Specifically, the court held that by virtue of an alternate employer endorsement naming a staffing company’s client as an insured under the staffing company’s workers’ compensation policy, the client company is entitled to the same immunities as the staffing company under the Workers Compensation Act (the Act).

Today, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial court’s decision (disclosure: I represented State Garden both before the trial court and the Appeals Court).  Specifically, the Appeals Court held that an “alternate employer endorsement” to a staffing company’s workers’ compensation policy satisfies the requirements of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, such that the staffing company’s client is entitled to the protection of the exclusivity provision of the Act.  In other words, the client company cannot be sued in tort by an employee of the staffing company who is injured while performing services to the client company, provided that the staffing company had obtained an alternate employer endorsement to its workers’ compensation policy that specifically names the client company as an additional insured.

The Appeals Court also held that the injured employee’s claim is barred by the terms of a valid waiver and release he signed at the beginning of his employment, pursuant to which he agreed not to sue a client company for damages based upon injuries covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.

This case is important for at least three reasons.  First, the decision protects staffing companies from having to indemnify clients against claims arising out of workplace injuries – or fighting with clients about responsibility for such claims – the costs of which are almost never factored into the fees charged by staffing companies to their clients.  Second, the case protects companies that use staffing companies against claims for damages covered by their staffing company’s workers’ compensation policy.  And third, the Appeals Court’s decision is consistent with and supports the intended effects of the Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as all parties’ bargained-for rights and obligations.

In sum:

  • Staffing companies- obtain alternate employer endorsements that specifically name your client companies as additional insureds.
  • Workers’ compensation insurance carriers- tell your staffing company clients to obtain, and your client company clients to demand, appropriate alternate employment endorsements.