You are here: / / INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLOYEES.

INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department determined interpreters were employees of CP Language Institute, Inc (CPLI):

The record establishes that CPLI advertises for language service interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation services for its clients. An interpreter is required to submit a resume and, after being interviewed by CPLI and receiving a sufficient score on a written language proficiency test, CPLI adds the interpreter to its roster. CPLI maintains a file of each interpreter’s qualifications that includes a resume, reference letters, proficiency exam and availability. CPLI notifies an interpreter of assignments, which can be accepted or declined by the interpreter. Once an assignment is accepted, however, the interpreter is required to notify CPLI if he or she becomes unavailable and CPLI, not the interpreter, provides a substitute if needed.

Furthermore, claimant signed an agreement with CPLI that included guidelines regarding punctuality, attire, performance and conduct when providing services to CPLI clients. Although claimant could work for other agencies that provided translation services, she was subject to a 12-month noncompete clause following termination of her relationship with CPLI. In addition, claimant was provided with a picture identification badge with CPLI’s name. Claimant was paid by CPLI following the submission of time sheets, regardless of whether CPLI was paid by the client. Any complaints from a client were handled by CPLI. Matter of Karapetyan (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 09324, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLLOYEES)/INTERPRETERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, EMPLOYEES NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)

You might also like
Empire Zone Status Can Be Revoked; No Vested or Actionable Right
A GENEALOGICAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST FOR MARRIAGE RECORDS FROM 1967 THROUGH 2017 PROPERLY DENIED ON ‘INVASION OF PRIVACY’ GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Not Competent When Release Was Signed/Statute of Limitations Tolled by Plaintiff’s Mental Disability
INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO A VICTIM OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY PETITIONER, MATTER REMITTED.
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD.
Motion to Renew Based Upon New Evidence Should Have Been Granted/Request to Depose Knowledgeable Witnesses In Addition to the Witnesses Initially Provided by the Municipality Should Have Been Granted
THE EVIDENCE OF ALTERCATIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN AND ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDINGS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, COMMON-LAW INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

WRONGFUL BIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UPON BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT UPON THE... MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE...