Employment Law Attorneys
Podcast: When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors?

Podcast: When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors?

In this episode of the Employee Survival Guide, Mark explores when can non-competition agreements be enforced against independent contractors and whether they can be voided.  Noncompetition agreements on independent contractors should not be enforced based on the analysis in the episode.

The Employee Survival Guide is a podcast only for employees. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about and guide you through various important employment law issues. The goal of the Employee Survival Guide podcast is to provide you with critical insights about your employment and give you the confidence to protect your job and career, especially during difficult times.

YOUR HOST MARK CAREY

The Employee Survival Guide podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 25 years.  Mark has seen just about every type of employment dispute there is, including the man who lost his voice box and his career, and has filed several hundred lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits.  He has a no frills and blunt approach to employment issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.

EMPLOYEE SURVIVAL GUIDE PODCAST IS LIKE NO OTHERS

The Employee Survival Guide podcast is just different than other lawyer podcasts! How?  Mark hates “lawyer speak” used by lawyers and just prefers to talk using normal everyday language understandable to everyone, not just a few.  This podcast is for employees only because no one has considered conveying employment information directly to employees, especially information their employers do not want them to know about.  Mark is not interested in the gross distortion and default systems propagated by all employers, but targets the employers intentions, including discriminatory animus, designed to make employees feel helpless and underrepresented within each company.  Company’s have human resource departments which only serve to protect the employer. You as an employee have nothing!  Well, now you have the Employee Survival Guide to deal with your employer.

Through the use of quick discussions about individual employment law topics, Mark easily provides the immediate insight you need to make important decisions.  Mark also uses dramatizations based on real cases he has litigated to explore important employment issues from the employee’s perspective.  Both forms used in the podcast allow the listener to access employment law issues without all the fluff used by many lawyers.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on FacebookTwitter and LinkedIn.  We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts.

For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com or email at info@capclaw.com.

The content of this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor create an attorney-client relationship.  Carey & Associates, P.C. makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy of the information contained on this website or to any website to which it is linked to.

Podcast: When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors?

When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors?

By Chris Avcollie

When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors? In response to a recent Carey & Associates, P.C. survey of topics of interest in employment law, some of our readers asked: “Are non-competition agreements enforceable against independent contractors?” This is an excellent question. The short answer in Connecticut is: “Yes, but with some exceptions and special circumstances.”

What Is A Non-Competition Agreement?

Non-competition agreements are special contracts between employers and their workers which prohibit workers from engaging in business activities that compete with their former employers, usually for a fixed period of time following the end of an employment relationship and usually within a definite geographical area.  These agreements, often called, “restrictive covenants” allow employers to prevent a former employee or contractor from earning a living in his or her business after the employment relationship ends.

Courts Generally Enforce Non-Competition Agreements

Courts in Connecticut will generally enforce non-competition agreements provided there is consideration provided for the promise not to compete and provided the restrictions are not unreasonable to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. Facts which our courts consider in evaluating the “reasonableness” of an non-competition agreements include: (1) the duration of the restriction, (2) the scope of the geographic restriction, (3) the protection afforded to the employer, (4) the degree of restriction on the employee’s career opportunities, and (5) whether the restrictions are in the public’s interest. If even one factor fails the “reasonableness” test, the non-competition agreements could be held to be unenforceable.

In Connecticut, as in many states, there are no statutes or regulations that specifically address non-competition agreements outside of the medical profession.  Whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable against an independent contractor is not specifically addressed under Connecticut law at this time.  Our courts do not formally distinguish between non-competition agreements with employees as opposed to independent contractors. That being said, the five-factor analysis described above does vary when it is applied to the independent contractor relationship. When courts analyze the fourth factor, i.e., the effect the non-competition agreements has on the worker’s career opportunities, our courts must account for the fact that independent contractors are by definition expected to serve more than a single customer at one time. That is what makes them, “independent.” Notwithstanding this obvious basis to reject all non-competition agreements as applied to independent contractors, our courts will often find non-competition agreements enforceable. For example, non-competition agreements were upheld in circumstances where an independent contractor uses their position with the employer to gain information to set up a competing business for themselves.

Rationale For Non-Competition Agreements Are Faulty

The concepts underlying and justifying these restrictive covenants are faulty. One underlying notion that is misapplied to non-competition agreements is the “freedom of contract.” This legal fiction posits that individuals and firms are free to act in the marketplace in their own best interests and are therefore free to make any lawful agreements they see fit. Unfortunately for most workers this “freedom” is an illusion. The notion that workers who do not want to be bound by non-competition agreements can simply “choose” to work elsewhere is absurd. Jobs are difficult to find during the best of times. During a global pandemic amid skyrocketing unemployment, locating a good position can be overwhelmingly difficult. If one is restricted from using one’s business contacts, skills, and training to function in the market and the industry in which one has established a record of experience, the task of finding gainful employment becomes insurmountable. In the employment context the power and resources of the employer as opposed to the employee is generally so unbalanced that “freedom of contract” is a bad joke.

While non-competition agreements are becoming increasingly common, these restrictions on a person’s ability to work often cause extreme hardship on workers who must find continuous employment within their chosen industry in order to survive and to support their families.  Why should an employer who has no legal obligation to employ its workers for any period of time get to dictate to a former employee where and how he or she can work? How can such an economically crippling restriction between parties of drastically unequal bargaining power be tolerated by courts of equity?

In a recent article, Attorney Mark Carey explores the profound injustice of restricting an employee’s right to work. (Covid-19 Cancels All Noncompete Agreements Due to Impossibility) During a pandemic where millions of American workers are unemployed, restricting anyone’s freedom to work is patently unconscionable. While our courts consistently uphold “reasonable” restrictions on competition, the Connecticut state legislature is at last beginning to address the problem directly.

In another recent article on this blog, Attorney Liz Swedock explains the provisions of a piece of proposed legislation currently under consideration by the Connecticut Legislature’s Labor and Public Employee Committee.(Connecticut “May Pass” a Partial Ban on Noncompetition Agreements). The new proposed legislation, SB 906, “An Act Concerning Non-Compete Agreements” would impose some reasonable limits on an employer’s ability to enforce a non-compete agreement. As it applies to independent contractors, SB 906 would prohibit non-competition agreements against contractors unless the contractor is being paid over five times the minimum wage or $60.00 per hour. While this proposed legislation is a step in the right direction in that it prevents non-competition agreements from victimizing the lowest-paid workers in the marketplace, it does not address the fundamental injustice of these agreements. The legislature’s special treatment of independent contractors under SB 906 indicates a recognition that employees and contractors are not in the same position with respect to these contracts.

Independent Contractors Serve More Than One Master

When it comes to independent contractors, the applicability of non-competition agreements becomes quite complex. While courts have recognized an employer’s interest in protecting its trade secrets and “good will” through non-competition agreements, independent contractors are by definition, not bound to a single employer, although in practice they sometimes are. The term “independent” refers to a contractor’s ability to provide goods and services to many businesses at once. Employees on the other hand are generally obligated to devote all of their productive time and energy to furthering the interests of their employer.

Employers Face Risks When Enforcing Non-Compete Against Independent Contractor

There are risks for employers who try to enforce non-competition agreements against independent contractors. When an employer imposes non-competition restrictions on an independent contractor, it runs the risk of changing the nature of its relationship with that worker. Where an employer exercises a high degree of control over the work of a contractor, that contractor could be considered a regular employee. Imposing a non-competition agreement could be construed as evidence of the very control that marks a traditional employment relationship.

Thus, employers sometimes seek to enforce non-competition agreements but are then counter-sued for employee benefits and wages based on the assertion of control under the non-competition agreement. Employers could incur liability for wages, administrative fines, or worker’s compensation benefits when an employee is “misclassified” as an independent contractor. This fact gives employers pause when enforcing non-competition agreements against their independent contractors.

Non-Competition Agreements Are Overreaching

In general, while courts in Connecticut will enforce non-competition agreements against independent contractors where they are held to be “reasonable”, it is difficult to justify the necessity of these restrictions. While employers often justify their restrictive covenants by asserting their right to protect confidential business information, this argument is irrelevant given the fact that all of an employer’s proprietary information is protected under trade secret and intellectual property protection statutes. Further, employers can and do include broad confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions into their employment agreements, which provide contractual protections from dissemination of vital company information. It is simply over-kill and over-reach to also seek to prevent competition from former workers whether they are employees or contractors.

The basic answer to the reader’s question about enforceability of non-competition agreements against independent contractors is that they are enforceable against independent contractors, but it is slightly more difficult and definitely riskier for employers to enforce such agreements against them. The larger answer is that all non-competes are inherently unjust, inequitable, and should be resisted by employees and contractors alike.

If you would like more information about When Can Non-Competition Agreements Be Enforced Against Independent Contractors? or would like to hire an employment attorney, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at info@capclaw.com or call (203) 255-4150.

Christopher S. Avcollie

2021 US Dept. Labor New Rule on Independent Contractors

 

Connecticut “May Pass” a Partial Ban on Noncompetition Agreements

Connecticut “May Pass” a Partial Ban on Noncompetition Agreements

By Liz Swedock,

This article is responding to a survey response question we recently received.  The reader asked, “Do you see a time when non-competes are not allowed in CT, similar to how CA approaches them? What would have to happen for that to occur? Do you believe it would be a net positive or negative?”

On March 4, 2021, Connecticut’s Labor and Public Employees Committee is holding a public hearing to discuss a new proposed bill which would vastly reduce the ability of employers to impose non-compete agreements on employees and independent contractors.

The bill, SB 906, “An Act Concerning Non-Compete Agreements,” would make it illegal for employers to impose non-compete agreements unless ALL of the following criteria are met:

  • Maximum term of one year if unpaid, or maximum term of two years if the employee is paid their entire salary and benefits for the term of the non-compete; and
  • If an exempt employee (paid a salary, not hourly wage earners), only if that individual is paid over 3x minimum wage (approximately $75,000+ per year for a full-time employee at the current minimum wage of $12 per hour);
  • If an independent contractor, only if that individual is paid over 5x minimum wage (approximately $60 per hour or $125,000+); and
  • The non-compete must be offered to the employee at least 10 business days BEFORE a deadline to accept the job offer (as either an employee or independent contractor) or the deadline to sign the non-compete (if already working in the job).

In addition, the proposed bill includes additional employee-favoring protections, including:

  • If the individual being asked to sign the non-compete is already an employee or independent contractor, the individual must be paid “sufficient consideration” for agreeing to the non-compete. The current rule in Connecticut is less clear – some courts have held that, when it comes to at-will employment, simply being allowed to continue your job is “sufficient consideration” when your employer demands that you sign a non-compete after you have already been working for some time.  If you refuse, they can fire you.  This bill would create a clearer rule.
  • The non-compete cannot require the employee litigate or arbitrate the non-compete outside of Connecticut. This is extremely helpful for employees who work for multistate (or worldwide) companies who often require that any disputes over the non-compete be brought wherever the company is headquartered.  This could be across the country or across the world.
  • Non-competes will be automatically invalid if they either (1) attempt to restrict the employee in any geographical location where they did not work during the prior two years, or (2) attempt to restrict anything other than “type of work” the employee actually did for the company. This is also very good for employees because many non-competes attempt to restrict employees from performing any work, even if non competitive, for any theoretically competing business, and try to apply non-competes to every location where the company does business – even if the employee only worked in one or a few locations.

We strongly support this type of legislation and will provide you with updates as the bill progresses.

Mark Carey Weighs In:

My first reaction to reading this proposed legislation was that it smacked of compromise between bipartisan politicians seeking to coddle employers and I am sure the CBIA was the biggest opponent here.

There is still no complete ban on noncompetition agreements here in Connecticut, as a majority of employees can still be benched on the sideline for a year without any pay for doing so.  Employer lobby groups pushed their continued agenda to restrict the livelihood of employees, even during a pandemic.  Noncompetition agreements are undemocratic in my opinion and should be abolished in Connecticut, just as they were in California and several other states.  In a recent article, I argued that noncompetition agreements should be void due to impossibility during a pandemic. Now I see our democratically controlled General Assembly is screwing employees once again. Shame on you all, go explain that to the working class employees who voted you into office!  When will this nonsense ever end?

According to the CBIA website, “[t]his bill could cause economic harm that comes from the loss of your trade secrets, proprietary information, client lists, source codes, or other confidential information.”  This explanation is nonsense.  Of the remaining businesses left in Connecticut, these employers already have in place confidentiality and proprietary protection agreements with their employees that protect against employee theft.  There is also the common law claims of breach of the duty of loyalty and care that most employers use to go after bad actors in noncompete disputes.  There are statutory claims such as Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act employers use to prosecute bad actors.  Noncompetition agreements are solely intended to harm employees from earning a livelihood, do not be fooled.  Employers in the State of California are doing just fine since 1872, the year the state outlawed noncompetition agreements.

If you would like more information about this topic or would like to hire an employment attorney, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at info@capclaw.com or call (203) 255-4150.

Podcast: The Devil Wears Santoni Shoes – This Boss Was No Angel

Podcast: The Devil Wears Santoni Shoes – This Boss Was No Angel

In this episode, Mark shares a real life story of a woman who was loyal to the company and did everything they asked of her.  But then she became sick with cancer and was fired.  This is a disability discrimination case. We have modified the names and facts to conceal the identities and ensure confidentiality. Her boss was a billionaire but by his actions you would consider him a cheap capitalist.   They refused to make her an employee with health benefits and she struggled for seven years as an independent contractor, working 60-70 hours per week, until the company finally made a her full time employee with health benefits. She had two pregnancies while working, and her employer forced her to work during her pregnancy leaves.  Soon after, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed surgery and chemo therapy.  She continued to work tirelessly even while on medical leave. Her cancer spread, she needed more surgery to remove her ovaries and more chemo therapy. She continued to work through her recovery. But then her employer forced her out on family medical leave without her consent, twice.  The second time she was not allowed to return to work and forced into disability leave of absence. The company cut off her health insurance when they terminated her, just as she was to receive further cancer treatments. Her husband was also suffering from cancer and no access to health insurance.   Mark provides commentary about the employer’s discriminatory and unlawful actions to get rid of this employee solely because she was a woman, over forty, and diagnosed with two forms of cancer.

The Employee Survival Guide is a podcast only for employees. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about and guide you through various important employment law issues. The goal of the Employee Survival Guide podcast is to provide you with critical insights about your employment and give you the confidence to protect your job and career, especially during difficult times.

YOUR HOST MARK CAREY

The Employee Survival Guide podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 25 years.  Mark has seen just about every type of employment dispute there is and has filed several hundred lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits.  He has a no frills and blunt approach to employment issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.

EMPLOYEE SURVIVAL GUIDE PODCAST IS LIKE NO OTHERS

The Employee Survival Guide podcast is just different than other lawyer podcasts! How?  Mark hates “lawyer speak” used by lawyers and just prefers to talk using normal everyday language understandable to everyone, not just a few.  This podcast is for employees only because no one has considered conveying employment information directly to employees, especially information their employers do not want them to know about.  Mark is not interested in the gross distortion and default systems propagated by all employers, but targets the employers intentions, including discriminatory animus, designed to make employees feel helpless and underrepresented within each company.  Company’s have human resource departments which only serve to protect the employer. You as an employee have nothing!  Well, now you have the Employee Survival Guide to deal with your employer.

Through the use of quick discussions about individual employment law topics, Mark easily provides the immediate insight you need to make important decisions.  Mark also uses dramatizations based on real cases he has litigated to explore important employment issues from the employee’s perspective.  Both forms used in the podcast allow the listener to access employment law issues without all the fluff used by many lawyers.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on FacebookTwitter and LinkedIn.  We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts.

For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com or email at info@capclaw.com.

The content of this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor create an attorney-client relationship.  Carey & Associates, P.C. makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy of the information contained on this website or to any website to which it is linked to.

Googlers Unite-Ignore Unions-Use the Hong Kong Method

Googlers Unite-Ignore Unions-Use the Hong Kong Method

This article is directed at Google employees who participated in or wanted to participate in recent walkouts and signed open letters to management.  Googlers stop wasting your time trying to form a union or engaging in public organizing efforts, there is a more effective way to get management to bow to your demands and without the risk of termination. There is no need to risk losing your job like Laurence Berland, Sophie Waldman, Paul Duke and Rebecca Rivers.  Google management will squash your efforts to align with the Communication Workers of America. The CWA only wants your union dues and will never protect you from discrimination and retaliation under federal and state employment laws.

Back in the fall of 2019, the NY Times published an article about how disrespected Google employees were embracing and becoming inspired by a recently republished short book about labor organizing and solidarity to effect changes within the company.  Curious, I purchased the small paperback to understand why Googlers were continuing to protest under the following call to action: “A company is nothing without its workers. From the moment we start at Google we’re told that we aren’t just employees; we’re owners. Every person who walked out today is an owner, and the owners say: Time’s up.” (Source).

The NY Times story summarized the current movement at Google as follows: “Some workers argued that they could win fairer pay policies and a full accounting of harassment claims by filing lawsuits or seeking to unionize. But the argument that gained the upper hand, especially as the debate escalated in the weeks after the walkout, held that those approaches would be futile, according to two people involved. Those who felt this way contended that only a less formal, worker-led organization could succeed, by waging mass resistance or implicitly threatening to do so.”

For Googlers, the way forward in their labor battle to effect positive change should not and cannot in any way remotely relate to a “labor organization” as that term is defined under the National Labor Relations Act.  Management at Google has already brought in their consultants to “fix” the problem, mainly by convincing employees not to organize.  There is a new way to maintain a collective voice but without the fear of reprisal and termination.

Just Say “No” To Unions

Googlers must vote “No” to unionization and collective bargaining, but vote “Yes”
to a decentralized and leaderless collective.  Liz Shuler, the secretary-treasurer of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. stated in the NY Times article above, “You don’t have the law behind you to protect you like you would if you have recognized agents like a union,” Either you accept Ms. Shuler’s mantra, and that of union activists nationwide, or you move forward, all the way forward, and accept the advent of a new non-unionization movement that is happening right now. The NLRA won’t catch up to this new momentum because the statute is irrelevant.  Management will not know how to quell this collectivism because there is no centralized labor organization to bargain with and that’s the essential point, it is leaderless and decentralized.

The Hong Kong Protest Method

Employees can now realize their true leverage to invoke change within their organizations, without the need to form a represented collective bargaining unit to address their concerns with management.  I now propose the Hong Kong Protest Method to employment civil disobedience, but without the element of violence. A decentralized and leaderless movement that has no discernable identity for government regulators to challenge them. Yet the protest movement in Hong Kong fully describes its’ strategy of inclusion via Wikipedia, “[t]hrough a participatory process of digital democracy activists are able to collaborate by voting on tactics and brainstorming next moves in an egalitarian manner in which everybody has an equal say. Telegram chat groups and online forums with voting mechanisms to make collective decisions have facilitated this type of flexible co-ordination.”

Googlers now have access to technology on their phones to air their concerns collectively under the radar in order to defeat a formidable opponent like management. Under the cloak of pseudonyms on message boards, airdrop communication broadcasts and other forms of subversive communications, employees can complain about important issues such as forced arbitration, sexual harassment, ending pay inequality, boycotting Project Dragonfly, without the fear of retaliation. What has worked in Hong Kong can work here inside of Google.

It is time to begin and give the real owners of Google a fair say in the direction of the company. Management will have no choice but to tolerate your dissent, because Google can’t fire all of you!

If you would like more information about this article, please contact Mark Carey at info@capclaw.com or 203-255-4150.

Employees, Not Independent Contractors: Closing a Loophole to Fair Benefits and Protections for Workers

Employees, Not Independent Contractors: Closing a Loophole to Fair Benefits and Protections for Workers

California’s just passed a bill that, once signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, will require gig economy workers to be reclassified as employees.  The bill codified a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which laid out a new standard for when workers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors for purposes of California’s wage order rules. Under the new California bill, workers are classified as employees if the company directs their tasks and their work is part of the company’s main business.

Unlike contractors, employees are entitled to a number of benefits and protections under both federal and state laws. Restricting the standards for classifying workers as independent contractors will make it harder for gig economy companies to prove that their workers aren’t staff, while ensuring key benefits and protections, like minimum wage, insurance and overtime pay.

Other states have adopted legislation extending benefits such as unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation to independent contractors, but California’s bill is the strongest and most comprehensive to date.  Similar bills aimed at protecting workers have been drafted in other states such as New York, Oregon and Washington.

Governor Newsom is still engaged in negotiations with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible exceptions or caveats to the bill. According to Uber, the work of its drivers falls outside the scope of the company’s usual course of business: serving as a technology platform. It remains to be seen whether this argument will allow the company, and those with a similar business model, to keep its drivers from being classified as employees.

Reactions to the bill are split.  Some argue that that the new classification framework will force employers to cut back on hiring in the face of rising costs. Some Uber and Lyft drivers worry that that it will curtail their work schedule flexibility. California contractors in remote-based fields have expressed concern that if other states do not follow suit, they will be unable to find work when companies opt for workers from other states who can be classified as independent contractors without needing to be added to the payroll.

But the bill could affect not only gig workers at companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart, it could change the employment status of more than a million low-wage workers in California, including nail salon workers, janitors and construction workers who are not covered by labor laws.

If you would like more information about your independent contractor situation, please contact us or email to info@capclaw.com and speak with one of our employment attorneys.

Are You Being Abused and Underpaid as an Independent Contractor?

Are You Being Abused and Underpaid as an Independent Contractor?

By Mark Carey

Imagine you could save thousands, millions if not billions of dollars by refusing to pay your taxes. Oh and there’s a catch, you have to be an employer here in the U.S.  Well, it is happening and we are all victims of this well-worn business scheme to misclassify employees as independent contractors, even though the employer controls every aspect of their employment.  Independent contractors pay more in self-employment tax, receive no health insurance and state and federal governments lose payroll tax deposits.

On May 28, 2019, the New York Times report that nearly one half of Google’s workforce are independent contractors.  Google employs 102,000 full time employees and 121,000 independent contractors.  According to an Inc.com article, nearly 20 percent of all business intentionally misclassify employees as independent contractors, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute.

At Google, employees revolted and threatened a walkout on twitter, writing “It’s time to end the two-tier system that treats some workers as expendable. From rideshare drivers, to cafeteria workers, to the many contractors who build and maintain tech products: we all contribute, and we all deserve a share”. Another group of independent contractors sent an open letter to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, complaining of unfair treatment and abuse.  The company responded with some vague illusory statement of change.  Nothing is going to change and I would place this item in the political basket. When enough people become aware and then outraged by this gross fraudulent conduct, just maybe the issue will perk into a political football to be debated in the next election.

What are we all waiting for?  How and when will this change?  I say never. So long as businesses are motivated by the financial profit of misclassifying employees, this illegal and fraudulent practice will continue.  Companies reap billions in savings by not paying FICA, unemployment benefits, workers compensation and health insurance to their independent contractors.  Sure, employee and class action lawsuits help but do not deter further abuse by companies.  Both state and federal governments are overwhelmed and underfunded, thus there is no remedy in sight.

If you need more information about working as an independent contractor, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY OF OUR
We're here to help with COVID-19 questionsRead More