You are here: / / INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a foreign language interpreter (linguist) was an employee of Legal Interpreting Services (LIS) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record establishes that LIS recruits through advertisements in newspapers and social media. Before adding an individual to its database of available interpreters, LIS recruiters meet with the applicant, review his or her resume, request certain personal identification information and negotiate his or her hourly pay rate. Claimants signed contracts, which set forth rules and regulations governing their conduct when providing translation or interpretation services. Although the principal of LIS testified that the rules and regulations were included at the insistence of certain customers and were merely “suggestions,” the contracts were drafted by an attorney hired by LIS and printed on LIS letterhead and do not indicate that the rules and regulations were merely suggestions.

When clients contacted LIS to request interpretation services, LIS selected a linguist from its database and provided that linguist with the specifics of the assignment, including the languages required and the date, time and location. Linguists were free to accept or decline assignments at their convenience. However, once they accepted an assignment, the linguists were required to notify LIS if they were running late, were unable to complete the assignment or were sending a substitute in their stead. With respect to pay, LIS required the linguists to submit time sheets, billed its clients and paid its linguists prior to receiving payment from those clients. A linguist’s payment was not contingent upon the client’s payment of the bill. Matter of Bin Yuan (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 05200, 3rd Dept 6-30-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM HER EMPLOYMENT FOR OTHER REASONS, THE FACT THAT SHE TESTIFIED IN FAMILY COURT ABOUT THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF A JUVENILE WHICH WAS NOT AS SEVERE AS THE PLACEMENT ADVOCATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF LOYALTY (THIRD DEPT).
Relation Back Doctrine Applied to Causes of Action Otherwise Time-Barred
Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUIRING A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING; THE APPELLATE COURT ORDERED A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING, INCLUDING A LINCOLN HEARING, AND ORDERED THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE THE PRESENT ATTORNEY HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHICH DID NOT ALTERNATE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES; THE FIRST QUESTION POSED TO THE JURY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED THE JURORS FROM CONSIDERING THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT RETURNED TO WORK AT FULL PAY, SHOULD SHE STOP WORK IN THE FUTURE SHE IS ENTITLED TO 375 WEEKS OF BENEFITS FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHICH RESULTED IN A 70% LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT).
SUBSTITUTE TEACHER NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN TWO SUCCESSIVE ACADEMIC YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE HE RECEIVED ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT; TWO-JUSTICE 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BROADER FLORIDA STATUTE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER... ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE...