1. About.com
  2. Business & Finance
  3. US Business Law / Taxes

Discuss in my forum

Jean   Murray

Mis-Classified Workers Don't Get Benefits

By , About.com Guide   September 24, 2011

Follow me on:

Update: The IRS has announced a new program to allow employers to voluntarily re-classify workers as employees instead of independent contractors. Read more about the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program, but be aware of other potential issues that may arise, like this one. Before you decide to enroll in the IRS reclassification program, discuss it with your employment attorney.

A recent case heard in District Court in New Jersey points out another issue with mis-classifying workers:

Two women were hired and, because they wanted to work at home, were classified as independent contractors. This arrangement continued for many years (10 years in one case), with the women repeatedly asking to be classified as employees. Finally, the workers submitted a classification review request (Form SS-8) to the IRS, who determined that they should be classified as employees and that the company must pay back employment taxes (FICA taxes) on these workers.

After they were hired as employees, the two women sued the company, claiming they should have received benefits during the time they worked as independent contractors, since they should have been classified as employees and further claiming they were intentionally mis-classified to avoid paying them benefits.

The Court ruled, in part, that the language of the benefit plan specifically excludes mis-classified employees from receiving benefits. That is, the plan anticipated that an independent contractor (specifically excluded from the benefit plans) might be found to have been mis-classified and specifically excludes these workers from receiving benefits during the time when they were mis-classified.

This case illustrates the principle of clear, unambiguous contract language, written by a competent attorney, which foresees issues and deals with them specifically. While the employer did have to pay back employment taxes, it was spared the requirement to pay benefits for the many years these women worked as independent contractors because the company had the foresight to deal with this issue in the document language.

More on independent contractors

IRS Factors in Classification of Employees vs. Independent Contractors

10 Facts You Should Know about Independent Contractors

Keep up to date with the latest on legal and tax issues affecting your business  - subscribe to my newsletter or RSS feed or check out my Facebook page.


Source: Kalksma et al. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

Comments
No comments yet.  Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
Related Searches bado

©2012 About.com. All rights reserved. 

A part of The New York Times Company.