Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        Department of Labor Releases Final Independent Contractor Status Rule

        January 22, 2024

        On Tuesday January 9, 2024, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its final rule setting forth how worker classification (i.e., whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor) will be determined by the agency under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This issue is relevant to all industries engaged in interstate commerce regardless of size and is applicable to anyone currently working with independent contractors.

        As you are likely aware, the FLSA does not apply to independent contractors. This means workers determined to be independent contractors are not subject to the same requirements as employees, such as FLSA provisions requiring minimum wage or overtime. The new rule, however, makes the ability to appropriately classify an employee as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, more difficult. Specifically, the new rule departs from the Trump Administration’s 2021 rule that had previously identified five economic reality factors to determine worker status, with an emphasis on two factors as more important than the rest – (1) the nature and degree of control over the relevant work and (2) an individual’s opportunity for profit or loss.

        The DOL’s new rule maintains the economic realities test, but returns to a totality of the circumstances analysis, where each factor is afforded equal weight, with no one (or two) factors controlling. The relevant factors include: (1) opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill, (2) investments by the worker and the potential employer, (3) the degree of permanence of the work relationship, (4) the nature and degree of control, (5) the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business, and (6) skill and initiative.

        While all employers should ensure they are in compliance with this new rule, employers in the Northeast should already find themselves compliant if they are following the stringent tests utilized by the states in which they operate. Recall that in order to be properly classified as an independent contractor under both state and federal law, companies must be in compliance with state DOL rules as well as federal DOL rules as to FLSA compliance.

        Below are descriptions of tests used by Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts for purposes of worker status under state wage and hour laws that illustrate this point.

        Connecticut

        Connecticut common law considers independent contractors to be worker’s who use their own methods without being controlled by the company, except as to work results. Factors related to the company’s control of the workers work include:

        • Behavioral Control – where and when to do the work, what tools and equipment to use, what routines or patterns must be used, etc. The more control the company has, the less likely an independent contractor relationship exists.
        • Financial control – reimbursing the worker’s business expenses, how the worker is paid, whether the worker has the opportunity for profit or loss, and if the worker makes their services publicly available. If the company restricts availability, reimburses expenses, or the individual is unable to control the ability for profit or loss, it is less likely that an independent contractor relationship exists.
        • The parties relationship – any written contract, whether or not the worker received a W-2 or 1099-MISC, the worker can terminate their relationship with the other party, the worker is providing services as a recognized corporate entity, and the worker receives benefits that employees receive. The more the individual “looks” like an employee, receiving benefits and a W-2, or working without a contract, the less likely an independent contractor relationship exists.

        Maine

        Maine common law utilizes the control test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. The test considers the following steps:

        • Is the individual free from direction or control of the employing unit?
        • Does the individual have the essential right to control the means and progress of the work except as to final results?
        • Is the individual customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business?
        • Does the individual have the opportunity for profit and loss as a result of the services being performed for the other individual/entity?
        • Does the individual hire and pay their assistants (if any) and to the extent that these assistants are employees, supervise the details of their work?
        • Does the individual make their services available to some client or customer community even if their right to do so is voluntarily not exercised or is temporarily restricted?
        • Whether the individual meets any of the 3 of the following elements:
          • The individual has a substantive investment in the facilities, tools, instruments, materials, & knowledge used by the individual to complete the work.
          • The individual is not required to work exclusively for the other individual/entity.
          • The individual is responsible for satisfactory completion of the work and may be held contractually responsible for failure to complete the work.
          • The parties have a contract that defines the relationship and gives contractual rights in the event the contract is terminated by the other individual/entity prior to completion of the work.
          • Payment to the individual is based on factors directly related to the work performed and not solely on the amount of time expended by the individual.
          • Such work is outside the usual course of the business for which the services are performed.
          • The individual has an IRS Determination (SS-8) of independent contractor status.

        In Maine, however, the analysis goes in order. If the answer to any of the first six questions is no, then the individual cannot be classified as an independent contractor.

        Massachusetts

        Massachusetts law considers whether the work:

        • Is done without the direction and control of the employer;
        • is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and
        • the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established business, occupation, trade, or profession of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.

        If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then again, it is less likely that the individual will be viewed as an independent contractor.

        Companies must employ the state law in the location in which the individual is providing services—not the company’s headquarter state. As you can see, the state tests are extensive, varied, and while in some cases very similar to the new rule set forth by the DOL, in other cases are much more expansive. Employers should evaluate their classification practices and policies to ensure compliance in light of this new DOL rule.

        If you have any questions concerning worker classification or FLSA compliance, please contact a member of Verrill’s Employment & Labor Team.

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...
        Media Mentions

        Cybersecurity and AI Governance: Scott Anderson Featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        Verrill Managing Partner Scott Anderson was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing how law firms can build attorney buy-in for...
        Blog

        Section 530A Account Update: ERISA Status of Trump Accounts

        The Department of Labor has issued important guidance addressing whether employer programs that permit contributions to Section 530A accounts (and...
        Press Releases

        97 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2027, Including Four Named Lawyers of the Year

        AUGUSTA, Maine, BANGOR, Maine, BOSTON, Mass., PORTLAND, Maine, and WESTPORT, Conn., (August 20, 2026) – Verrill is proud to announce that 97...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        SEC’s Proposed “Reg Crypto”: What Founders Need to Know

        Startup founders and emerging-growth companies have a number of options for raising capital under the federal securities laws, including Regulation D...
        Blog

        After 45 Years, the IRS Speaks on DCAP Nondiscrimination Testing – And It’s Good News

        Employers that provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program will be pleased to learn that for the first time in 45 years, the IRS has issued guidance...
        Media Mentions

        U.S. Courts Highlights Annabel Rodriguez’s Journey from Fellow to Mentor

        Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez was featured in a recent U.S. Courts article titled “From Fellows to Mentors: Alumni Share Lasting Lessons from...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses Bankruptcy Auction Strategy in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach spoke with Law360 article examining the complex bankruptcy auction process that resulted in the sale of 23 summer...
        Media Mentions

        Martha Gaythwaite Featured in Portland Press Herald Coverage of Sig Sauer Trial Victory

        Verrill attorney Martha Gaythwaite was highlighted in media coverage of a federal trial in Bangor involving firearm manufacturer Sig Sauer. As...
        Media Mentions

        Law360 Quotes Robert Keach on Senate Bill Affecting Small Business Restructurings

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article discussing federal legislation that would permanently restore the $7.5 million...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        SAFEs and Preferred Stock – Key Deal Terms Every Founder Should Know

        SAFEs Before negotiating a term sheet for preferred stock, many early-stage companies, particularly at the seed stage, first raise capital through...