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 PARTIES TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGE ORDERS; THEREFORE THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS WERE WAIVED AND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS NOT A BREACH (THIRD DEPT). ​
THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
THE FINDING BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS NEVER FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL CITY LAW; THEREFORE THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR CONTESTING THE RULING NEVER STARTED TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).
STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT).
THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2025 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...