You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

Limousine Driver Properly Found to Be an Employee

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of SUK, a limousine service, and therefore was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.  The court noted that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) need not distinguish every arguably similar case it has previously decided:

“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,” with control over the latter being more important … .

Here, the record establishes that SUK assigned jobs to claimant and fielded complaints from its customers. Additionally, SUK imposed numerous restrictions upon claimant, including prohibiting him from working with its competitors, imposing detailed rules as to acceptable work dress and behavior and requiring him to drive a specific type of car. SUK also set the rate collected from the passengers and handled all voucher billing. … …[T]he Board need not “explicitly distinguish in its written decisions each and every arguably similar case that it previously has decided” and, hence, was not required to address the distinguishable cases relied upon by SUK … . Matter of June-Il Kim (Suk Inc.–Commissioner of Labor)\, 2015 NY Slip Op 03438, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over Employment Within Federal Enclaves (Here Navy Ships at Sea)

The Third Department determined that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) had jurisdiction over employment within so-called federal enclaves.  Here claimant was employed by a company which sold cars to Navy personnel stationed on ships at sea.  The company, Priority Assist, argued the Board did not have jurisdiction over the employment at issue.  The court relied on a US Supreme Court case which indicated the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States could be modified by statute, and the federal statute which state employment on federal propery was not exempt from state unemployment compensation law:

Priority Assist initially asserts that claimant and others similarly situated performed work in federal enclaves — i.e., lands purchased by the federal government, with state consent, “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” — and that the Board accordingly lacked jurisdiction to hold it liable for unemployment insurance contributions (US Const, art I, § 8, cl 17). Even assuming that United States Navy vessels that have never been part of a state constitute federal enclaves, “exclusive jurisdiction over [such an] area . . . remains with the United States, except as modified by statute” (Howard v Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 344 US 624, 627 [1953] [emphasis added]). Inasmuch as federal law provides that “[n]o person shall be relieved from compliance with a [s]tate unemployment compensation law on the ground that services were performed on land or premises owned, held, or possessed by the United States,” the Board retained jurisdiction here (26 USC § 3305 [d]). Matter of Pickton (Priority Assist Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03437, 3rd Dept 4-23-15

 

Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract

The Third Department determined the employer, Partsfleet, exercised sufficient control over the claimant, a delivery driver, to support the finding that the driver was an employee, even though the employer had a contract with another company, SCI, which issued claimant’s paycheck. SCI had no involvement with the duties performed by the claimant. “Claimant was retained as a delivery driver following a short interview with a Partsfleet representative and a check of his motor vehicle record. Partsfleet trained him on the operation of a scanner used to schedule and track customer deliveries, and briefed him on the requirements of the customers. The delivery schedule was set by Partsfleet based upon customer requests, and it monitored deliveries via the scanner. Claimant was paid based on the particular delivery route that he had completed at a rate that Partsfleet set with its customer, and claimant was paid if he completed the route regardless of whether the customer paid Partsfleet. Claimant worked out of a warehouse that belonged to one of Partfleet’s customers and that is where he left his completed route sheets, which were then collected by a Partsfleet representative. Any problems with deliveries were generally handled by a Partsfleet representative. Although claimant could work for other companies and find replacements if he could not work a particular route, the replacements had to be approved by Partsfleet. The foregoing establishes that Partsfleet maintained control over important aspects of claimant’s work as was necessary to insure that its customers’ needs were satisfied…” Matter of Watson (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03224, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

Employer Did Not Exercise Sufficient Control over Claimant’s Work—Finding that Claimant Was an Employee Was Not Supported

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of Stacy Blackman Consulting (SBC).  The court explained: “Claimant … executed an agreement that designated him an independent contractor. He further negotiated his own fee, was not reimbursed for expenses, and was not provided with any benefits. SBC did not train, supervise or otherwise direct claimant in the performance of his work, although it did require him to turn over whatever application materials he had helped prepare. SBC also did not perform any substantive review of claimant’s work, did not require him to attend any meetings or consult with it, and allowed him to decline assignments and take time off as he saw fit. Moreover, while the parties’ agreement required claimant to keep sample application materials provided by SBC confidential and imposed restrictions on his ability to work for competitors in the field, the president of SBC testified without contradiction that she had never enforced those provisions and had permitted claimant to work elsewhere. ”  Matter of Jhaveri (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03019, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of Encore, an event staffing company which refers persons, called brand ambassadors,  to clients who want to promote a product at an event. The court wrote: “…[T]he pertinent inquiry is whether Encore exercised control “over the results produced or the means used to obtain those results, with control over the latter being the more important factor to consider” … Here, the evidence reveals that Encore retained little or no control over either the means or results of the work performed by the brand ambassadors. Significantly, Encore did not conduct interviews, auditions or background checks, did not review credentials or set the rate of pay, did not provide training or supervision at events, did not establish work schedules, did not supply equipment, clothing or props and did not evaluate performance. Notably, it was the clients who directed the brand ambassadors by providing them with instruction on how to promote the specific products or services.” Matter of Lee (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 03022, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Graphic Designer Properly Found to Be an Employee

The Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that a graphic designer was an employee, not an independent contractor:

…[I]t is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . “The determination rests not on one single factor, but consideration is given to whether control was exercised over the results or the means used to achieve those results, with the latter factor deemed more important” … .

Here, claimant responded to a website posting and, after being interviewed, was selected by Propoint to work on client projects at a mutually agreed pay rate of $28 per hour. He was paid every two weeks regardless of whether Propoint received payment from the client. Although there were no set working hours, claimant performed most of his work at the employer’s premises, where he was provided with a computer, software and related items, and he was required to turn in daily time cards. Propoint did not provide claimant with any leave time or other benefits, withhold taxes from his paychecks or prohibit him from working for others, and it required him to sign an independent contractor agreement. Propoint, however, retained the right to review claimant’s work product and direct him to make changes. Moreover, the confidentiality provisions of the independent contractor agreement precluded claimant from including client projects in his personal portfolio. Inasmuch as the foregoing demonstrates that Propoint retained control over both the means and the results of claimant’s work, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of an employment relationship… . Matter of Ramirez (Propoint Graphics LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02825, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct

The Third Department determined that a fight with a co-employee after hours at a bar could constitute disqualifying misconduct if the fight was connected with claimant’s employment.  Because the Board, which granted unemployment benefits, based its determination on where the fight occurred, the matter was remitted:

“Fighting with a coworker, regardless of who initiates the confrontation, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Claimant, moreover, was aware that the employer considered fighting to be a major infraction and that it could result in his termination. It is true that the fight occurred at a bar outside of work hours but, in that regard, a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits whenever his or her misconduct occurs “in connection with” his or her employment (Labor Law § 593 [3]…). Claimant was accordingly obliged, “even during his off-duty hours, to honor the standards of behavior which his employer has a right to expect of him and . . . he may be denied unemployment benefits as a result of misconduct in connection with his work if he fails to live up to this obligation” … . Therefore, the relevant question is not where or when the attack occurred, but whether it was connected to claimant’s employment … . Inasmuch as “the Board failed to address this relevant issue, its decision must be reversed and the matter remitted for further development of the record” … . Matter of Moniz (Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02534, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

Drivers Transporting Patients to a Physical Therapy Facility Are Employees Not Independent Contractors

The Third Department determined drivers for Agewell, a physical therapy center, (bringing patients to the facility) were employees, not independent contractors:

Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . An employment relationship will be found “when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with “‘control over the means [being] the more important factor'” … . In contrast, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced,” such as supplying form contracts, requiring periodic reports and attendance at meetings, giving instruction on what to wear or how to make a presentation, “without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results[,] will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Agewell set the driver’s schedules, determining the order in which multiple clients would be picked up, and required the drivers to sign in and out. Drivers typically used Agewell’s vehicles with the company logo on them and its credit card when putting gas into the vehicles, but were reimbursed if they used their own vehicles. Claimant further testified that shirts and jackets with the company logo were provided and that he typically wore them, along with a name tag. Agewell also fielded complaints from clients and provided feedback to the drivers on their performance. Drivers were allowed to pursue their own business interests and many did, including claimant. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the control retained by Agewell was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of McAlevey (Agewell Physical Therapy & Wellness, P.C.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02179, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a cleaning and janitorial service, Shield Cleaners:

“Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . An employment relationship will be found “when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with “‘control over the means [being] the more important factor'” … . In contrast, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced,” such as supplying form contracts, requiring periodic reports and attendance at meetings, giving instruction on what to wear or how to make a presentation, “without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results[,] will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, claimant testified that Shield Cleaning contacted her with assignments and told her how long to spend at each assignment, and that she was required to accept unless she was performing another assignment or could produce documentation, such as a doctor’s note, to show why she was not at work. Shield Cleaning worked out the requirements in advance and memorialized the agreements with the client in writing. Claimant was paid by the hour, required to submit time sheets, had a certain percentage of her paycheck deducted as insurance and agreed in writing not to solicit any of Shield Cleaning’s clients as her own. She was also provided with supplies to perform her work and a t-shirt with the company’s logo and telephone number on it. Claimant was paid regardless of whether the client paid, and any complaints about the work were directed to Shield Cleaning, rather than claimant. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the control retained by Shield Cleaning was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of Dwightmoore (Lawrence M. Fanfair–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02182, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

Interpreter Working for Office of Court Administration Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined claimant, a Spanish interpreter working for the Office of Court Administration (OCA), was an employee, not an independent contractor, but declined to extend the holding to others similarly situated:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists “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” … . We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that OCA exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over this claimant’s work activities to establish an employer-employee relationship, but decline to extend this holding to others “similarly situated.”

During the nearly 2½ years that claimant worked at the Bronx Family Court, she was required to work a set schedule from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. … . When first assigned to that court, she was scheduled to report for a few weeks, but it was not long before claimant was scheduled monthly in advance … . Although claimant did not have to accept assignments, once she was on the schedule, she could not take time off, nor was she allowed to send someone in her place … ; if she knew she needed time off, she was expected to tell her supervisor in advance so she would not be put on the schedule … . Upon arriving at work each morning, claimant reported to the senior court interpreter, who told her where to report. OCA set claimant’s rate of pay … and, upon reporting to the court, she was paid — by direct deposit into her personal checking account — whether or not she actually provided interpreting services … . * * * Matter of Viau…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01691, 3rd Dept 2-26-16

 

Delivery Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and determined claimant was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.  Claimant worked as a delivery person for a business (ADS) that transports lost luggage from airports to the owners of the luggage:

Whether an employee-employer relationship exists “is a factual question to be resolved by the Board and we will not disturb its determination when it is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … . “‘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'” … . Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the requisite control is lacking.

Claimant paid all of the expenses associated with his delivery work, including the lease of his vehicle, fuel, tolls, insurance, maintenance and his cell phone. For his services, claimant negotiated his own rate of pay and was paid a portion of the commission paid to ADS … . No training was provided by ADS, nor did it impose any conditions on the way that claimant performed his work. Claimant spoke to the customer directly to determine delivery times and was ultimately responsible for lost or damaged luggage. Moreover, under the parties’ agreement, which designated him an independent contractor, claimant was permitted to hire other individuals to perform work, did not work a fixed schedule, had the right to accept or reject assignments and was free to work for any other company … . Matter of Jennings…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01503, 3rd Dept 2-19-15

 

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