You are here: / / INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, was an employee of Language Services Associates, Inc. (LSA), not an independent contractor:

 

The record establishes that LSA advertises for interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation services to its clients. Interpreters are screened for their experience and, if approved by LSA following an interview, they are placed on a roster for future assignments. Clients contact LSA directly to request the services of an interpreter, at which point LSA decides who to call from its pool of interpreters. Although interpreters are free to decline assignments, there was testimony that they are not permitted to substitute someone else in their place once an assignment is accepted. LSA provides interpreters with the requisite information for accepted assignments, and interpreters are advised by LSA, not the client, of any changes in assignments. Moreover, interpreters are prohibited from accepting future assignments from a client without obtaining LSA’s permission and are subject to penalties for arriving late or failing to appear for an assignment without providing LSA with notice and a reasonable explanation. LSA requires interpreters to submit invoices detailing the hours worked for each in-person interpretation assignment, pays interpreters directly and reimburses them for transportation expenses associated with assignments.

The record further reflects that LSA records and monitors telephone interpretation services to ensure that interpreters are adequately performing their services. To that end, LSA assigned interpreters, including claimant, to evaluate other interpreters’ telephone services. Claimant herself received feedback and instructions from LSA on how to improve her services, and she conducted, at LSA’s request, numerous evaluations of other interpreters’ services. Based upon these evaluations, interpreters are given a rating that could affect whether an interpreter receives future assignments from LSA. Matter of Soo Tsui (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 00229, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE)/INTERPRETERS (UNEMPLOYEMENT INSURANCE, INTERPRETERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

You might also like
THE ABANDONMENT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENT FATHER INTENDED TO FOREGO HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS AND, IN FACT, PETITIONER AFFIRMATIVELY INTERFERED WITH FATHER’S ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER.
THE CREDIT BID IN THIS UCC FORECLOSURE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUANT TO UCC 9-615 (THIRD DEPT).
THE INSURER PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BOARD’S RULING THAT THE INSURER WAS THE RESPONSIBLE CARRIER WAS BASED UPON FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTATIOIN; IT WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE INSURER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE APPOINTED STANDBY COUNSEL AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED, THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON TRACKED-IN-RAIN DURING AN ONGOING STORM; DEFENDANT HAD PLACED MATS NEAR THE DOOR AND ELSEWHERE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF.
SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE... PLENARY ACTION UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGING ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN DECEITFUL...