Skip to main content

Employer Liability for the Acts of Independent Contractors

Recently, a federal judge in Illinois ordered Dish Network to pay $280 million in fines for robocalls and for calling people on the Do Not Call Registry. According to news accounts, one of Dish Network's defenses was that the companies doing the illegal calling were independent contractors, and, therefore, Dish Network can't be held liable for their actions. The judge rejected this argument.

An independent contractor is different than a salaried or hourly employee, and they are treated differently under the law. Employers often hire independent contractors to do short or long-term projects. Or the independent contractors can even act like a full-time employee in everything but name.

Often, employers can be held liable for wrongful acts committed by its employees, if those acts were committed during the course of the employee doing his or her job. But usually not for the wrongful acts of independent contractors, even if they caused harm while performing work for the "employer" (not really "employer" because the independent contractor is not an employee--they are just two parties to a contract). As courts have said:
As a general rule, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts.
Hence the beauty of the independent contractor. Like Dish Network tried to do, an employer who gets sued can say, "I'm not responsible for what they did! They were independent contractors!"

But sometimes employers can be held liable for the actions of independent contractors. Under New York law, the issue hinges on:  how much control did the "employer" have, and/or exercise, over the performance of the independent contractor's work, or the manner in which they did it? The more control the "employer" had and exercised, the more likely the independent contractor will be considered an employee.

This is true even if the actual contract between the "employer" and the independent contractor says, "You are not an employee. You are an independent contractor." Courts will say, "Yes, that's very nice, but that's not the law. The key factor is how much control did the employer have and/or exercise over the performance of the work."

As you  might suspect, this inquiry is very fact-specific, it depends on the circumstances of each case, and courts often say it is an "issue for the jury" or a "question of fact". That is, a jury has to decide the issue, a judge cannot. You see, courts can't decide "questions of fact", only "questions of law". (Unless a factual matter is so clear on the evidence in the record that it becomes a "question of law", and then they can decide it! Sounds confusing? That is a topic for another day.)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more