Misclassifying Employees as Independent Contractors
During seventeen years of installing floors for Lowe’s Home Centers, Darin Viars has had neither the freedom of an independent contractor nor the benefits of an employee. The complaint for this class action alleges that Viars has been an employee all along because of the limiting rules and arrangements he has had to follow. A number of factors seem to support the complaint’s claim that he is an employee, and the complaint claims that he has actually been misclassified as an employee, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This settlement resolves two class actions alleging that dancers performing at certain adult clubs should have been treated as employees rather than owners and so did not receive proper pay and benefits.
Plaintiff Ronnie Stevenson works for Knight Transportation, Inc. as a truck driver. Knight insists he’s not an “employee” but an “independent contractor,” yet the complaint for this class action alleges that the only difference between Knight’s “employee” truck drivers and its “independent contractor” truck drivers is that the employees receive benefits and the others do not. While there are no hard-and-fast definitions of employees versus independent contractors, the criteria used to judge classification have to do mostly with independence, choice, and control, and the complaint presents evidence that Knight does not allow drivers independence, choice, or control in any significant aspects of their work.
Are you a truck driver for XPO Logistics who is classified as an independent contractor, when you’re actually an employee?
A common problem in employment cases is the misclassification of full-time employees as “consultants” in order to avoid giving them overtime pay or other requirements of employment law. That’s what the complaint for this class action alleges about the employment of plaintiffs Joshua Serrette and Timothy Hemphill, who worked for the defendants as “mud engineers,” or drilling fluid consultants. The complaint seeks offers evidence that the two men were in fact employees and not independent contractors, and that they should have been paid overtime for all hours worked over forty, according to federal, Ohio, and Pennsylvania laws.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Lyft improperly classified drivers who gave rides in California as independent contractors rather than employees and that as a result of this classification, Lyft violated various laws and regulations.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges that Silver Reign incorrectly identified employees as independent contractors resulting in denied wages and overtime, reimbursement of uniform costs, and breaks for meals.
Plaintiffs allege that Kaplan violated FLSA and Illinois law by classifying Head Student Representatives as independent contractors and therefore failing to pay minimum wage.
This lawsuit alleges that Reuters failed to pay its editors, journalists, photographers and writers overtime pay as employees but rather misclassified these workers as independent contractors.
This lawsuit alleges that Uber misclassified its drivers as independent contractors when in fact Uber should have classified the drivers as employees.