Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Dire Financial Consequences of Misclassifying Your Employees
In February of this year, a Florida appeals court upheld a decision by Gov. Rick Scott's administration that Uber drivers are independent contractors and not employees. In terms of the law, the decision was hardly revolutionary. It did, however, highlight the importance of properly classifying workers. Indeed, failure to properly classify workers can have staggering financial consequences for a business that operates on a model that relies heavily on a large number of independent contractors.
By way of example, pretend that the court in McGillis v. Department of Economic Opportunity had ruled against Uber's interests and found that its driver was an employee entitled to reemployment assistance under Florida Statutes Section 443.1216. 210 So.3d 220 (3d DCA 2017). This would, of course, mean also altering the facts of that case a bit. Like most courts analyzing the distinction between independent contractors and employees, the Third District Court of Appeals focused its analysis on the level of “control” exerted by Uber over its driver, i.e., “the right to direct what shall be done and how and when it shall be done.” On that point, the court held that while both independent contractors and employees are both subject to some control, Uber drivers, unlike employees, are free to decide the “means” used to achieve the “results.” If the court had found otherwise, Uber could have been subjected to some very serious financial penalties once everything was said and done.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?