Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Guidance Issued by the Department of Labor

Client Alert

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its long-awaited final rule — effective March 11, 2024 — revising its prior interpretation of worker classifications under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The new final rule rescinds the standard previously established in 2021, in turn, shifting the analysis of whether a worker is an employee (versus an independent contractor) of a business from a more streamlined “economic reality” test to a more complex “totality of the circumstances” standard.

Understanding and correctly applying this new analysis is critical given the implications of worker misclassification under the FLSA — employees are entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay, and other benefits, whereas independent contractors are not entitled to such benefits but enjoy greater flexibility and independence.

Under the new standard, the following non-exhaustive list of factors will be taken into consideration:

  1. The opportunity for profit or loss a worker might have based on their skillset (i.e., factors that impact a worker’s economic success or failure);
  2. The financial state and nature of any resources (e.g., capital or entrepreneurial) a worker has invested in the work;
  3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship (i.e., whether the work relationship is indefinite versus temporary in nature);
  4. The degree of control an employer has over the person’s work (e.g., who sets the worker’s schedule, who oversees and/or directs performance, and whether the worker can maintain other jobs);
  5. Whether the work the person does is essential (i.e., critical, necessary, or central) to the employer’s business; and
  6. The worker’s skill and initiative, including whether the worker contributes to business-like initiatives.

While the above analysis is, again, limited to worker classifications under the FLSA, it is very likely to have a significant impact going forward as, per the DOL, the final rule is intended to stretch broadly across all industries to “reduce the risk that employees are misclassified as independent contractors while providing a consistent approach for businesses that engage with individuals who are in business for themselves.”

The new final rule, while not controlling law, will inevitably serve as persuasive guidance in federal misclassification cases.

For additional information on the new DOL guidance or how it may impact your company, please reach out to Monica Andress at (330) 253-9153 or mbandress@bmdllc.com, or any member of the Labor and Employment Team of Brennan, Manna & Diamond LLC.


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.