You are here: / / Customer Service Representative Working from Home Properly Determined to...

Customer Service Representative Working from Home Properly Determined to Be an Employee

The Third Department determined there was substantial evidence to support the finding claimant was an employee of PRF.  Claimant worked from home booking reservations at off-site parking facilities near airports:

Although claimant and other representatives worked from home and were required to provide their own Internet service, PRF furnished them with special phones that utilized the voice over Internet protocol necessary to assist customers. In addition, PRF provided training on use of the phones as well as the services that it provided to its customers. Although PRF did not establish set hours and allowed the representatives to hold other jobs, it set up a schedule online that the representatives completed by selecting the hours that they wished to work, and PRF emailed them their final schedules. Claimant and the other representatives submitted invoices for hours worked that PRF would, in turn, check against their work schedules. Notably, PRF was able to monitor the representatives while they were assisting customers to verify that they were working and to ensure quality service. Moreover, PRF handled customer complaints and took corrective action where necessary. Matter of Aussicker (Park Ride Fly USA–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04376, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

You might also like
Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service
FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS FINDING REVERSED.
CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.
County Court Had Jurisdiction to Correct 1999 Sentence Which Did Not Include Period of Post-Release Supervision
PETITIONER-MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE MALTREATMENT FINDING DEEMED UNFOUNDED AND EXPUNGED PROPERLY DENIED; MOTHER WOULD NOT ALLOW HER 16-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER INTO THE HOME; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 35 PROVIDES A SAFETY NET FOR WORKERS WHO HAVE REACHED THE LIMIT OF WEEKS OF INDEMNITY PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 15 (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Did Not Exercise Sufficient Control over Claimant’s Work—Finding that Claimant Was an Employee Was Not Supported
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (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

Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory... Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should...