Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR/MISCLASSIFICATION ISSUE AFFECTS ENTITLEMENT TO EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TOO

Written on .

Most companies are familiar with the great amount of publicity and litigation involving the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors.  But companies may not be aware of a rarely publicized concern, the concern being that under the companies' policies, employees are entitled to various benefits, such as healthcare coverage and possibly retirement and other benefits.  Thus, if a worker is determined to be an employee rather than a contractor, a company's potential liability for employment benefits can be large. 

A closely-watched case dealing with these issues is now pending before the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Jammal v. American Family Insurance Company, No. 17-4125, Petition for Rehearing 2/26/19.  A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit had determined that about 7,200 insurance agents were independent contractors not entitled to employment benefits, based on an analysis suggested by the factors set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden.  A lower court judge had ruled that the company was wrong to classify the agents as independent contractors, but the Sixth Circuit had reversed that decision.  The plaintiff insurance agents want all of the Sixth Circuit judges to rehear their case, giving them another opportunity to prevail.

Editor's Note: The determination of whether purported independent contractors might be found to be employees and thus covered by company benefit policies may be determined by contractual principles, often relying on criteria set forth in the relevant benefit plan documents.  Companies should be careful how these plan documents are drafted in order to lessen exposure to this type litigation.  Further inducement for employers to examine their contractor relationships, are announcements during March that Swift Transportation has agreed to pay $100 million to end a long-standing suit alleging that it makes its workers faux "owner-operators" to avoid federal and state wage laws, and that Uber Technologies has agreed to pay $20 million to drivers to settle a lawsuit claiming the ride-hailing company misclassified those drivers as independent contractors. 

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

chaotic light lines
On July 10, 2026, E-Verify notified employers that work authorization is extended temporarily through July 24, 2026, for workers from the f…
connected spheres
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced on April 22, 2026, a new proposed rule clarifying when multiple employers are jointly liable f…
plaintiff sign
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) encourages the use and enforcement of arbitration agreements, although the Act contains an exception for…
3
On April 13, 2026, President Trump nominated James Macy to fill the third vacant Republican seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLR…
deception
An employer official named in a graphic sexual harassment suit brought a counter-claim against her accuser for defamation, calling his alle…
pointing to computer
No personnel issues have been debated longer and more thoroughly than that of the utility of performance reviews.  Some argue that such rev…