Entertainment Law Resources
​
  • HOME
  • LAW PRACTICE
    • Mark Litwak
    • Diana Budninskiy
    • Glenn Litwak
    • Pete Wilke
  • ARTICLES & VIDEO CLIPS
    • Articles >
      • General Articles by Mark Litwak >
        • Right of Privacy
        • Jimi Hendrix Right of Publicity Suit
        • Creative Accounting
        • The Hangover II: Tyson Tattoo Copyright Infringement Suit
        • Filmmaker's Bill of Rights
        • Purchasing Life Story Rights
        • Breaking Into Show Biz
        • Contract Law as a Remedy for Story Theft
        • Glossary of Industry Terms
        • Movie Merchandising
        • Internet Distribution - The Promise and the Pitfalls
        • Protecting Film Investors
        • Copyright Registration of Scripts & Films
        • Obtaining Music for a Motion Picture Soundtrack
        • Financing Motion Pictures
        • Protecting Your Stories
        • Documentary Filmmakers Adopt Position on Fair Use
        • Crowd-Funding for Filmmakers
        • New Law Will Help Indie Filmmakers Raise Financing
      • Film Articles by Mark Litwak >
        • Dealmaking Tips for Film and Television: The Acquisition/Distribution Agreement
        • The Film Distribution Deal: Tactics and Strategy
        • International Co-Production Checklist
        • Self-Defense for Filmmakers
        • Distribution and the Indie Filmmaker
        • Script Annotation Guide
        • Optioning Literary Material
        • Distribution 101: Foreign Sales Agent
      • Multimedia Articles by Mark Litwak >
        • Negotiating the Electronic Publishing Agreement
        • Publishing Agreement Checklist
        • Copyright Registration of Multimedia Works
        • Copyright Notice for Multimedia Works
        • Legal Roadmap for Multimedia Productions
      • Published Articles by Mark Litwak
      • Articles about Mark Litwak
    • Video & Audio Clips
  • STORE
  • RESOURCES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
  • FAQ
  • SITE MAP

New Law Increases Penalties for Classifying Employees as Independent Contractors

2/27/2012

 
By: Mark Litwak

As of January 1, 2012, a new California law creates significant penalties for employers who "willfully" misclassify their workers as independent contractors. In the movie industry, the government usually considers most crew members, as well as above-the-line personnel, to be employees, not independent contractors.

Producers, however, often attempt to hire others as  independent contractors because it is administratively simpler, and they may want to avoid hiring a payroll company, withholding taxes, paying the minimum wage or overtime, and complying with other wage and hour law regulations. Moreover, a producer may want to avoid covering staff under workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or social security.

The federal government has for some time now been cracking down on employers who treat regular employees as independent contractors, thereby avoiding taxes and side-stepping various employment laws.

The new bill, SB 459 was recently signed into law by Governor Brown. It does not change the criteria for determining whether a worker qualifies as an independent contractor, but it greatly enhances the penalty for employers who misclassify personnel.Penalties range from $5,000 to $15,000 per violation for isolated violations. Where there is a pattern or practice of violations, the penalty can increase to $10,000 to $25,000 per violation. 

However, it is often difficult to determine how personnel should be classified. The IRS takes the position that most people working on a film production should be classified as employees, not independent contractors. They obviously want taxes withheld. If the person is being employed through a loan out company, then the loan out company will withhold taxes and this should not pose a problem for the producer. Moreover, if the person is being hired, not just for their time but also equipment that is being supplied, it is more likely to pass muster as an independent contractor. Simply calling the person an independent contractor or using a independent contractor form of agreement, does not by itself give much protection.    

In determining whether an individual providing service to another is an independent contractor or an employee, the "control" test, is often used initially to make this evaluation. To put it simply, an employee is an individual who the employer has the right to exercise control over the manner and means by which the individual performs his or her services. 

However, there is no single determinative factor. Rather, it is necessary to closely examine the facts of each service relationship and to then apply a multi-factor or "economic realities" test. (Labor Code § 3357; S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 C al. 3d 341 at pp. 349, 354.) The Borello court identified the following additional factors that must be considered:

        1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;

        2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal;

        3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;

        4. The alleged employee's investment in the equipment or materials required by his task;

        5. The skill required in the particular occupation;

        6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;

        7. The alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his managerial skill;

        8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;

        9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;

        10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and

        11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship.

The party seeking to avoid liability as an employer has the burden of proving that persons whose services he or she has retained are independent contractors rather than employees. In other words, there is a presumption of employment.

To review the bill and analysis

    Archives

    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    January 2009

    For older posts, please visit The Litwak Blog.
    Join our Email Newsletter list
    Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
    For Email Newsletters you can trust
Home
Law Practice
Store
Articles & Video Clips
Resources

Blog

Contact
FAQ
Site Map

LAW OFFICES OF
MARK LITWAK & ASSOCIATES

11766 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 270
Los Angeles, California 90025
Phone: 310-859-9595
Fax: 310-859-0806

Follow us on
Join our Email Newsletter list
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
For Email Newsletters you can trust
© 2013, Mark Litwak. All Rights Reserved.│ Legal Disclaimer │ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
✕