Part 2 of 2
Part 1 of this article outlined the different categories of contingent workers. In Part 2, the author outlines the ramifications of misclassifying contingent workers, both in case law and for the IRS.
When individuals are not considered to be employees, employers are often insulated from various discrimination suits. While this is not the main reason an employer hires contingent workers, it can be an added benefit. However, just as it is important to classify individuals properly for benefit and tax purposes, law firms also need to classify individuals properly to ensure they understand the possible discrimination issues up front and will not be unwittingly blind-sided by someone whom they thought was a contingent worker, but who is subsequently determined to be an employee. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc. that when determining whether a worker is an employee for Title VII purposes, the analysis needs to focus on the "extent to which the hiring party controls the manner and means by which the worker completes [his or] her assigned tasks, and not on how [he or] she is treated for tax purposes or whether [he or] she receives benefits." The factors used by the court were derived from the 13 factors set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). The court in Eisenberg focused on how the "anti-discrimination laws were not intended to be skirted by the terms of individual employment contracts."
Part 2 of 2
Part 1 of this article outlined the different categories of contingent workers. In Part 2, the author outlines the ramifications of misclassifying contingent workers, both in case law and for the IRS.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.
As quantum machines become more powerful, today’s uncrackable encryption schemes may become trivial to break. Opinions vary as to how soon that moment, so-called “Q Day,” will arrive, but the threat is real.
How do you communicate when you know the harm before you know its cause? For law firms, it comes up both when advising a client and when explaining an incident of their own.
The gap between what a firm bills and what it collects is not a collections failure. It is a design flaw in how the whole revenue cycle is wired, and clients armed with AI are now exploiting it faster than firms can respond.