You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

Factory-Work Packaging Yogurt Was Not “Suitable Employment” for a Skilled Carpenter

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s determination claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he refused suitable employment.  Claimant is a skilled carpenter.  He refused a yogurt-packaging job in a factory.  The yogurt-packaging job was not, under the circumstances, “suitable employment” for the claimant:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 593 (2), a claimant who refuses “an offer of employment for which he or she is reasonably fitted by training and experience” will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . Significantly, a “claimant need not accept every job offered but, rather[,] only those job offers which bear a reasonable relationship to [the] claimant’s skills” … . Here, it is undisputed that claimant was skilled in finish carpentry and had no experience working in a factory. Consequently, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s decision that he refused an offer of suitable employer … . The Board’s decision, in fact, runs contrary to a similar case in which the Board awarded benefits to another claimant who worked at the millwork company as a skilled craftsman and refused the same offer to work as a packager in a yogurt factory … . In view of the foregoing, the Board’s decision must be reversed. Matter of Reisen (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 05560, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

Claimant-Interpreter Properly Found to Be an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined claimant interpreter was properly determined to be an employee of LIS (not an independent contractor) and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, the evidence established that claimant responded to an advertisement for interpreters posted online by LIS, was screened and approved by LIS, and executed a contract specifying the hourly rate of compensation and setting forth numerous rules of conduct [FN1]. Clients contact LIS to request interpreter services; LIS then selects one of its interpreters, contacts the interpreter and provides him or her with the details of the assignment. Once committed to an assignment, interpreters may not send a substitute without that substitute having been prescreened by LIS. LIS supplies its interpreters with time sheet forms that must be submitted within 24 hours of an assignment and pays the interpreters directly based upon an hourly rate of pay set forth in the interpreters’ contracts with LIS. LIS also reimburses interpreters for transportation costs associated with assignments. Notwithstanding record proof that could support a contrary result, the foregoing proof constitutes substantial evidence supporting the determination that claimant and others similarly situated are employees of LIS and not independent contractors… . Matter of Ruano …, 2014 NY Slip Op 04108, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Contract Attorney Was an Employee Despite “Independent Contractor” Designation in a Written Employment Agreement

The Third Department determined a “contract attorney” hired by an attorney (Brody) for document-review in a class-action case was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, despite claimant’s designation as an independent contractor in a written agreement:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . As here, “in cases where the rendering of professional services is involved, an employment relationship can be found where there is substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means” … .

Here, claimant was paid an agreed-upon hourly rate and required to work at least 45 hours a week, but not more than 50. He was also given specified hours each day to report to his assigned work station, he was required to take a daily unpaid 30 minute lunch break and was occasionally required to report to work on weekends. He was allowed to take unpaid days off, provided that he requested the time off in advance. He received daily assignments from an associate attorney of Brody, who supervised his work. In addition to document review, claimant also assisted in the litigation by providing Brody with written memoranda summarizing deposition testimony, work that included claimant’s attendance at meetings with attorneys from other firms involved in the litigation. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Brody retained sufficient overall control of claimant’s services to establish an employment relationship, despite evidence in the record that could support a contrary conclusion … . The fact that claimant signed a written agreement designating him as an independent contractor does not compel a different result … . Matter of Singhal (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04550, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

,

Election Poll Worker Not an Employee—Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined an election poll worker was not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

“An employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results [although] control over the means [used to achieve those results] is the more important factor to be considered” … .

Here, claimant testified that she responded affirmatively to a card received in the mail from the Board of Elections asking if she was available to work on election day; she thereafter received training and was assigned to a polling place, where she worked as a poll worker or inspector on election day. Her duties included setting up and overseeing tables, signing in voters, showing them how to use the voting machines, keeping track of voting cards and printing a tally of votes at the end of the day, which were reported to the Board of Elections.

Poll clerks, like election inspectors, are appointed, trained, compensated and perform duties as mandated by statute and overseen by the New York State Board of Elections (see Election Law §§ 3-400, 3-402, 3-404, 3-412, 3-420; see also Election Law § 3-102). In the City of New York, they are compensated at a per diem rate established by the Mayor (see Election Law § 3-420 [1]). While, pursuant to those governing statutes, the Board of Elections may have exercised some supervision over the poll workers and their training, this is insufficient, by itself, to establish an employer-employee relationship, and the record is devoid of any proof that any such supervision exercised exceeded that required by law, or that additional duties or requirements were imposed beyond those provided by statute … . Matter of Chorekchan (New York City Bd. of Elections–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04552, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Music Teachers Were Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Criteria for Professionals, Like Musicians, Who Do Not Lend Themselves to Direct Supervision or Control, Explained

The Third Department determined music teachers were employees of Encore Music, a service which connected students with teachers for a portion of the fees paid by the students.  Encore unsuccessfully argued the teachers were independent contractors:

…”[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional . . . responsibilities,” courts have applied the “‘overall control'” test, which requires that the employer exercise control over “‘important aspects of the services performed'” …, a test which has been applied to musicians who “do not easily lend themselves to direct supervision or control” … . Further, “an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship” … .

…Encore screened the teachers, checked their references, conducted criminal background checks and then matched students to teachers based upon a variety of factors, including qualifications. Encore thereafter followed up with the students after lessons to ensure that they were satisfied. Encore set the lesson fees, which were generally the same for all teachers with some exceptions, billed students directly and paid teachers regardless of whether the students paid Encore. Although teachers used their own equipment, determined the lesson plans or methods and could decline students, they were required to sign a contract that provided that they would, “when reasonably requested by [Encore], act as a music lesson instructor.” The contract also contained a clause prohibiting teachers from soliciting Encore’s students that was in effect during the contract and for three years after its expiration, although teachers were allowed to work for competitors and to have their own private students. Matter of Encore Music Lessons LLC (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04553, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Sales Rep Was an Employee Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined a cellular phone sales representative was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law “is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” …. .

… The record establishes that Cellular Sales precluded sales representatives from selling competing products and its products outside of the “territory” absent its prior written consent, suggested, and in certain instances required, that products be sold at a minimum price, set sales goals for the sales representatives to attain and provided a script that sales representatives were to “[s]tick to . . . on every customer opportunity” regarding a certain cellular phone. In addition, Cellular Sales specified a certain dress code and provided that any sales representative not meeting such dress code in its store would be “address[ed]” by a leader. Cellular Sales also required sales representatives to, among other things, complete certain mandatory training that it paid for, to “strictly comply” with its directives regarding use, disclosure and application of marketing information and to know and follow certain “procedures for the market.” …[T]he record establishes that Cellular Sales dictated the number of sales representatives that would work in the store on a given day, provided each sales representative with a Cellular Sales email address and business cards, required, for a certain period of time, that sales representatives send customers thank you cards that it provided and supplied the sales representatives with products for demonstrations. The record also indicates that Cellular Sales reprimanded sales representatives regarding tardiness, held mandatory meetings, required sale representatives who chose to work in the store to submit their availability and requests for days off and, once a shift was assigned, required a sales representative to secure coverage if he or she could not work on the assigned shift. Matter of Pratt (Cellular Sales of N.Y., LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04549, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

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

 

Claimant Did Not Demonstrate a Compelling Reason to Close His Business—Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denied

The Third Department determined a business owner who voluntarily closed his business was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because a compelling reason for the closure was not demonstrated:

“When a claimant closes an operating business, the issue of whether he or she is qualified to receive benefits turns upon whether there was a compelling reason to close the business” … . Here, claimant testified that, beginning in 2009, his business began to decline and that, between 2009 and 2012, there was a 50% drop-off of catering contracts. The corporation’s tax returns reflect, however, gross receipts of $297,167 in 2009, with a net income of $2,522, gross receipts of $281,397 in 2010, with a net income of $4,997, and gross receipts of $279,755 in 2011, with a net income of $764. Claimant’s individual tax returns reveal that he was paid a moderate salary in each of these three years. At the time he closed the business at the end of August 2012, claimant estimated corporate gross receipts of $220,970 for the year to date, with a net income of $26,620, after payment of claimant’s salary, in a sum that was lower than the prior years, but was not an extreme departure from his prior earnings. Although the decline in business had required claimant to reduce personnel, there was no proof that the business was otherwise unable to meet its financial obligations. Claimant owned the building where he ran the business, and there was no mortgage; the premises were rented to the business for favorable tax treatment. Although claimant testified that, at the time he closed the business he had no bookings for October 2012 to December 2012, he also testified that his business was seasonal and that this was generally a slow time. In our view, the record thus establishes that this was a viable business, and the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of O’Connell (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04176, 3rd Dept 5-14-15

 

“Mystery Shopper” Not an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant, a mystery shopper, was not an employee entitled to unemployment benefits because the employer, Confero, exercised minimal control over claimant’s work:

Here, claimant testified that, when a new mystery shopping event became available, he was notified via email by a scheduling company and then was able to view the assignment on Confero’s website. Claimant had the liberty of choosing what assignments, if any, he wanted to perform and, after he accepted an assignment, Confero did not even require that claimant perform the assignment himself. Rather, claimant had the discretion to send a substitute in his place so long as he provided notification to the scheduling company to ensure that the substitute was not overexposed at a given location. Although each assignment came with certain tasks that claimant had to perform, the manner in which he performed those tasks was fully within his discretion. Significantly, Confero did not require that claimant perform any minimum number of assignments, request that he seek permission for time off or set forth a particular work schedule. According to Confero’s president, claimant was free to work as little or as much as he wanted. For each assignment that he completed, claimant was paid a nonnegotiable fixed fee that was set by Confero’s client. Further evidencing a lack of control, Confero did not provide claimant with any training, supply him with any equipment or require him to attend any meetings, and it fully permitted him to work for competing companies, which he did regularly. Matter of Chan (Confero Consulting Assoc., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03890, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

UInstructor at a Not-for-Profit Theater Company Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined a playwrighting instructor at  a not-for-profit theater company, Primary Stages Company, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

We note that, for purposes of our review, we consider instructors and teachers to be professionals … . Accordingly, in deciding if such individuals are employees, the pertinent inquiry is “whether the purported employer retains control of important aspects of the services performed” … .

Here, Primary Stages utilized an informal process in retaining claimant, as it was familiar with her through her affiliation with a writers’ group and simply inquired if she was interested in teaching writing classes. Claimant responded in the affirmative and entered into a written agreement with Primary Stages under which she was paid a flat fee of $1,900 per class. Primary Stages furnished the classroom and also provided a teaching assistant. Although claimant retained the discretion to set the course curriculum, claimant and Primary Stages worked together to establish the class schedule that Primary Stages then distributed to prospective students. Primary Stages was responsible for providing all school facilities and a teaching assistant, finding students to fill the classes and collecting their tuition. The school cancelled classes if there was low enrollment, in which case the instructor would not be paid. If claimant could not teach a class, she needed to notify Primary Stages and, if she or other instructors were unable to complete a course assignment, Primary Stages would find a replacement whose selection was often based upon the recommendation of the instructor. Furthermore, Primary Stages circulated an evaluation form to students for feedback on the instructor at the end of the course and, if the evaluation was unsatisfactory, it would not rehire that instructor. Matter of Wilner (Primary Stages Co. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03902, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

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