Los Angeles employee misclassification lawyer

Should Amway Sellers be Classified – And Paid – As Employees?

January 15, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

A worker for Amway, a multi-level marketing company that sells home, health and beauty care products, is suing the company and alleging he and other sellers should be classified and paid as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Our Los Angeles employee misclassification attorneys are watching this case closely because it could impact a host of other similar types of business models, such as LuLaRoe, Young Living, Scentsy, Rodan + Fields, Avon Products, Herbalife and others.

Amway sells products like detergent and mouthwash, promoting itself as a means for sellers to become “small business owners.” They thrive on person-to-person sales. These types of companies have come under fire for reportedly predatory business models that require salespersons to buy several hundred or thousand dollars in products just to get started. In some cases, individuals have drained their savings and retirement accounts. The Federal Trade Commission has issued warnings about these types of pyramid schemes, but the companies remain in business.

Most of these companies refer to their salespersons as independent “participants,” “distributors” or “contractors.” But are they?

Not according to the plaintiff in the latest California employment lawsuit against Amway. Continue Reading ›

Uber Ordered to Pay Unemployment, Sets Precedent for Employee Misclassification Cases

July 29, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

New York State labor review board has made a move that could shake up the gig economy forever. The board of regulators recently ruled that three former Uber drivers qualify for unemployment insurance, a decision which first requires that the drivers be considered employees in the first place. According to a report from Forbes, the ruling would apply to all “similarly situated” workers, and the board ordered the company pay unemployment insurance benefits on behalf of the drivers.

Gig economy jobs have become popular in recent years, with companies like Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, and a myriad of other delivery and driving services taking the reins and reshaping the economy. Those desperate for a way to make ends meet that also allows for flexibility around an already packed work and family schedule have given these companies a robust labor force. Others who cannot find stable full-time work have thrown themselves into long days and nights trying to earn enough for a full-time wage. Their desperation, along with contractor loopholes, have created a sub-economy where workers are being stripped of many of the protections others enjoy. Turbo Tax-owner Intuit estimated last year that 34 percent of the American workforce is working in the gig economy, with many this year estimating the number to be closer to 40 percent. Continue Reading ›

What the Dynamex Ruling Could Mean for Contract Workers

May 12, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

What started as two delivery drivers fighting for their employee status has blossomed into a landmark class-action lawsuit that could have a major ripple effect on employee classification in California and the gig economy in general. In the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al, the California Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that classified a class of delivery drivers as employees rather than independent contractors, as Dynamex had been classifying them. The ruling sets a new precedent for guidelines necessary to determine a workers’ classification that expands the definition of “employee” broader than current standards, according to National Law Review.

The ruling supersedes another made by the court in the case of S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations in 1989, which established a multi-faceted test based on how much control or autonomy an employee had in regards to the company. The new three-point standard, or the ABC standard, established by the ruling is a more commonly used method that simplifies the determining process, but also broadly increases how many workers would qualify as employees across the board. The first point (A) is in line with the previous precedent, in that it speaks specifically to workers functioning outside the control of the employer for the performance of the work; B) worker has other regular work outside the company in question; and C) that they work in an occupation, trade, or business that is independently established. Under these rules, the Supreme Court sided with the former opinion that these drivers should be classified as employees, with all the benefits that come with that. “Employee” has become defined as “all workers who would ordinarily be viewed as working in the hiring business,” according to the CA Supreme Court ruling.