Tag: Employees

NEW YORK APPELLLATE DIVISION FINDS THAT IVY LEAGUE CONNECTION TUTORS ARE EMPLOYEES

Ivy League Connection, Inc. provides in-home tutoring services to clients seeking help with schoolwork and test preparation.  In 2012, Ivy League was assessed for unspecified unemployment insurance contributions for its tutors who worked for Ivy League beginning from early 2009. 

In an effort to limit its unemployment insurance costs, Ivy League objected to this assessment and argued that its tutors were independent contractors, not employees.  The assessment was upheld, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the decision.  Ivy League then appealed.

On July 24, 2014, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board’s decision.  The court found that Ivy League tutors were in fact employees.  The court applied a test that establishes an employer-employee relationship when an organization screens the services of professionals, pays them a set rate and then offers their services to clients.

  The Court held that because Ivy League screened, interviewed and conducted a criminal background check on tutors, paid tutors an hourly rate based on submitted documentation and matched clients with a tutor that it deemed best suited for the client’s needs, the tutors are considered to be employees.

 

Moreover, the court stated that Ivy League’s non-solicitation agreement with the tutors was further indicative of an employer-employee relationship.

The full decision can be viewed here.

NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY ADVANCES “BAN THE BOX” BILL ESTABLISHING EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR CANDIDATES WITH CRIMINAL HISTORIES

Last month, the New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee advanced “The Opportunity to Compete Act,” commonly known as the “Ban the Box” bill, which if passed, will afford employment candidates with criminal histories some legal protection. Specifically, the new bill will prohibit an employer (with less than 15 employees) from inquiring about a candidate’s criminal history in connection with any employment decision during the pre-application or application process.

An employer, however, is authorized to consider an applicant’s criminal history after the candidate has received an offer of conditional employment. In this event, the bill requires that an employer obtain the candidate’s written consent to conduct a background check and provide the candidate with a “Notice of Rights” outlining the protections that the candidate is entitled under the bill.

If an employer wishes to rescind its offer of conditional employment based upon the applicant’s criminal history, the bill requires that the employer give written notification of the adverse employment decision to the candidate as well as a copy of the results of the criminal history inquiry, a completed Applicant Criminal Record Consideration Form and another copy of the “Notice of Rights.” The applicant will then be entitled to submit a response to the employer within 10 business days after receipt of the documentation above, to which the employer must respond within 45 days.

Failing to comply with the provisions of the bill subjects an employer to fines ranging from $500 to $7,500 depending on the number of employees within the company and whether the employer has committed previous violations.

We will continue to monitor the developments of this proposed legislation.