You are here: / / YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES.

YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined the non-staff yoga instructors who worked for Yoga Vida were not employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The non-staff instructors make their own schedules and choose how they are paid (either hourly or on a percentage basis). Unlike staff instructors, who are paid regardless of whether anyone attends a class, the non-staff instructors are paid only if a certain number of students attend their classes. Additionally, in contrast to the staff instructors, who cannot work for competitor studios within certain geographical areas, the studio does not place any restrictions on where the non-staff teachers can teach, and the instructors are free to inform Yoga Vida students of classes they will teach at other locations so the students can follow them to another studio. Furthermore, only staff instructors, as distinct from non-staff instructors, are required to attend meetings or receive training. The proof of incidental control relied upon by the Board, including that Yoga Vida inquired if the instructors had proper licenses, published the master schedule on its web site, and provided the space for the classes, does not support the conclusion that the instructors are employees. Similarly, in this context, the evidence cited by the dissent, including that Yoga Vida generally determines what fee is charged and collects the fee directly from the students, and provides a substitute instructor if the non-staff instructor is unable to teach a class and cannot find a substitute, does not supply sufficient indicia of control over the instructors. Furthermore, that Yoga Vida received feedback about the instructors from the students does not support the Board’s conclusion. “The requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” … . Matter of Yoga Vida NYC (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06940, CtApp 10-25-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES)

You might also like
TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).
Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable
THE INVOLVEMENT OF A VAN IN A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE TRAFFIC STOP AND AN INCIDENT WHERE A TRAFFIC AGENT WAS NEARLY STRUCK BY THE VAN 24 HOURS BEFORE THE STOP PROVIDED “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VAN AT THE TIME OF THE STOP WAS THE DRIVER DURING THE ROAD-RAGE AND TRAFFIC-AGENT INCIDENTS (CT APP).
NYC’S “OPEN SPACE” ZONING REQUIREMENT IS MET BY ROOFTOP GARDENS ON A SINGLE BUILDING IN A MULTI-BUILDING ZONING LOT (CT APP). ​
THE NYC ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN TO PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO HELP REUNITE FATHER WITH HIS CHILD IN THIS PARENTAL-RIGHTS-TERMINATION PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​
Opposition to Additur or Remittitur After First Trial Can Not Be Appealed After Second Trial
Jury Should Have Been Instructed that It Could Determine Whether Witness Was an Accomplice and Assess the Witness’ Credibility Accordingly/Propriety of Jury Instruction Is Reviewable by the Court of Appeals as a Matter of Law

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

CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE;... FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS...