You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department, in an extensive decision, reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and found that claimant, a blog writer for the The Nation magazine, was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

At the outset, we are satisfied that claimant — an experienced, well-known and established writer, author and media critic — qualifies as a professional for purposes of our analysis. Hence, our focus will be whether the company exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” by claimant … . …

While it is true that claimant was required to identify himself as a writer for The Nation, was paid an annual salary in monthly installments and was reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, it is equally true that claimant received a 1099 form each year, filed his taxes as self-employed, was not required to obtain permission prior to taking a vacation and neither received fringe benefitnor was covered by the union contract pertaining to The Nation’s staff writers … . …

Turning to the actual degree of supervision or control exercised over claimant’s work, the record reveals that claimant was not formally interviewed for his position … , worked from home utilizing his personal laptop, set his own hours and did not suffer any adverse consequences if he did not post a story … . Additionally, claimant did not have a supervisor …  and was not permitted to work from The Nation’s offices. Significantly, the record makes clear that claimant generally was not assigned to write on a particular topic and could post a story to his blog prior to it being edited by The Nation’s staff … . * * *

Although claimant was given “a broad direction to write about the media . . . and politics,” “the contents of the post and the topic were really . . . entirely his choice.” Unlike staff writers, claimant could not be compelled to write on a particular topic and, while The Nation preferred that claimant post his articles early in the workday and that such articles be submitted for editorial review prior to posting on the website, the senior editor made clear that claimant had no established work hours, could post whenever and from wherever he wished and that there were “no repercussions” and “no consequences” if claimant posted an article later in the day without editorial review or, alternatively, did not post at all on a given day. Matter of Mitchell (Nation Co. Ltd. Partners — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08923, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/WRITERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BLOGGERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

BRAND AMBASSADOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a brand ambassador was not an employee of Attack, a marketing outfit that hired ambassadors to promote particular products at events:

Here, the record evidence reflects that Attack retained little or no control over the means or results of the work performed by claimant and the other brand ambassadors. Although Attack required claimant to fill out a profile page and provide certain personal information and work experience, Attack did not interview or audition claimant, nor did it conduct a background check. Significantly, pursuant to the written agreement that claimant executed with Attack, the rate of pay of compensation, as well as the nature and duration of the services that claimant would provide, were dictated by the clients and not Attack. Similarly, Attack did not provide any training, supervision or materials and did not establish claimant’s work schedule. Nor did Attack provide claimant with any benefits, and claimant was not paid until the client paid Attack. Although claimant could not directly solicit work from Attack’s clients, he was also free to work as a brand ambassador for other companies. Matter of Burgess (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08410, 3rd Dept 12-15-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSUREANCE (BRAND AMBASSADOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BRAND AMBASSADOR (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BRAND AMBASSADOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

The Third Department, reversing the board, determined claimant’s acceptance of $10,000 and his agreement to resign during the course of grievance proceedings constituted a voluntary separation from his employment. Claimant was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [C]laimant’s resignation and acceptance of the $10,000 payment in settlement of outstanding grievances and other claims constitutes a voluntary separation from employment disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . There is no indication that claimant was forced to accept the settlement agreement or that he was subject to disciplinary action if he did not. Matter of Gill (Phoenix Energy Mgt. Inc. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08140, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS)/VOLUNTARY SEPARATION (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS)

EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant’s excessive absenteeism justified the denial of unemployment insurance benefits. The fact claimant didn’t realize the last warning was a final warning did not excuse the behavior:

Excessive absenteeism, which continues despite repeated warnings, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . Here, it is undisputed that claimant was continually absent from work even after she was warned that further absences would result in disciplinary action, including discharge. Although claimant maintains that she did not realize that the last warning was her final one, this does not excuse her behavior under the circumstances presented. Matter of Mead (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07374, 3rd Dept 11-10-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS)/ABSENTEEISM (EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS)

DISSATISFACTION WITH JOB ASSIGNMENTS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR RESIGNING.

The Third Department upheld the board’s finding claimant did not demonstrate good cause to leave her job and therefore was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits:

… [D]issatisfaction with job assignments or responsibilities has been held to not constitute good cause for resigning … . The Board credited the testimony of claimant’s supervisor regarding the reorganization and its effect upon claimant. Claimant’s title, grade, salary, work schedule and location were not being changed and, while there were changes in her job duties, her precise duties had not been finally determined due to the ongoing and preliminary nature of the reorganization.

Significantly, claimant did not attempt to speak with any of her supervisors before resigning to raise concerns or clarify the new job duties. The Board was free to reject claimant’s disputed testimony that she resigned as a result of ongoing retaliation … . Matter of Flint-Jones (Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07368, 3rd Dept 11-10-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (DISSATISFACTION WITH JOB ASSIGNMENTS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR RESIGNING)

CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING HE WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED.

The Third Department determined claimant, who was listed as a principal of a corporation (Reel One), did not have a sufficient connection to the corporation to warrant the board’s decision claimant was not totally unemployed:

It is well settled that “[a] claimant who is a principal of an ongoing corporation will not be considered totally unemployed if he or she stands to benefit financially from its continued operation, no matter how minimal the activities performed on its behalf” … .

Here, there is no evidence that claimant performed any activities, however trivial, on behalf of Reel One in 2010 during the time period at issue. In addition, there is no evidence that claimant’s name appeared on any bank accounts or corporate documents. Claimant testified that his wife created Reel One as a nonprofit corporation in the 1990s before they were married and that she was the sole shareholder. Although claimant and his wife, who both had extensive journalism experience, were listed as principals of Reel One on its website, claimant testified that his wife provided this information for marketing purposes only and that the website functioned as a type of advertisement. There is no evidence that the website was actively used to transact business. Matter of Petrick (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07363, 3rd Dept. 11-10-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING HE WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED)

OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR.

The Third Department determined claimant, who operated a janitorial cleaning business, based upon a franchise agreement with Jan-Pro, was an employee of Jan-Pro and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence demonstrates that Jan-Pro assigned claimant a specific geographic territory and required new franchisees to undergo initial mandatory training, which was paid for by Jan-Pro. Franchisees were also required to operate the business in accordance with the procedures established at the training and the standards set forth by Jan-Pro … . To that end, franchisees had to use Jan-Pro-sanctioned equipment, supplies, products and business forms … . Jan-Pro helped resolve any complaints between a customer and a franchisee and retained the right to discontinue a franchisee’s services to any client any time … . Jan-Pro provided franchisees with a starter set of business cards, which contained Jan-Pro’s logo, and claimant’s business card listed Jan-Pro’s name, logo and address … . Although claimant had the option of designing his own business card, any such designs required Jan-Pro’s approval. Furthermore, according to the franchise agreement, if claimant developed any new concepts or techniques that improved Jan-Pro’s business, they became Jan-Pro’s property … .

The franchise agreement also contained a non-compete provision barring claimant from operating for one year in any area of Jan-Pro’s affiliates or franchises … . Moreover, the franchise agreement gave Jan-Pro the sole right to invoice and collect from claimant’s customer accounts, maintain revenue records with respect to such accounts and accept payment from claimant’s customers. While the franchise agreement designated claimant as an independent contractor, such terms are not dispositive of claimant’s status … . Matter of Baez (PD 10276, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07061, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

NEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR)

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)

TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined tennis pro who provided lessons for TDA, an indoor tennis club, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The testimony at the hearing established that TDA is solely responsible for setting the court rental and lesson fees, scheduling lessons, assigning tennis pros to clients who sign up for lessons and dictating which particular tennis court is to be used for each lesson. For certain group lessons, TDA even directs what type of stroke the tennis pros must teach. If a client is dissatisfied with a tennis pro’s services, the complaint is handled by TDA. In addition, in the event that a tennis pro is unable to attend a scheduled lesson, TDA facilitates the rescheduling of the lesson or the coordinating of a substitute tennis pro to teach the lesson. According to the testimony of claimant and another tennis pro, which the Board explicitly credited, if a tennis pro misses a scheduled lesson and the court cannot be rented to another client, TDA deducts the cost of the court rental fee from the tennis pro’s weekly earnings.

As for payment, each tennis pro is paid per lesson and the pay rate varies depending on, among other things, the pro’s certifications. Seasonal clients — i.e., clients who reserve a court for an entire season — pay their court rental fee up front and then pay the tennis pros directly for each lesson at a rate suggested by TDA and set forth in a contract between TDA and the client.  Matter of Campbell (TDA Indus., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06528, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE)/TENNIS PRO (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TENNIS PRO WAS AN EMPLOYEE)

BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a “brand ambassador” hired by G&R (an entertainment and communication business) to promote products at live events was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, the uncontroverted testimony of G & R’s account executive established that G & R did not train or instruct claimant on his duties for this event, was not present on the event day and lacked any authority to and did not supervise claimant or the means by which he performed these duties for the client. G & R advertised the position on a Facebook page for brand ambassadors, using information about the event position provided by the client, and it received via email resumes and accompanying photographs from applicants, which it reviewed and submitted to the client, which selected its brand ambassadors. Claimant was free to decline the position and was permitted to and had worked for other brand promoters; after the client selected claimant and other individuals for this event, G & R provided them with written show information and guidelines supplied by the client, which outlined the details and expectations for the event.

G & R also sent claimant a welcome letter agreement — that the parties signed — designating him as an independent contractor and that required, among other provisions, that any substitutes be approved; it also set forth the client’s expectations and rules … . Matter of Berger (Gail & Rice, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06527, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BRAND AMBASSADOR (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

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