Skip to main content

Court finds withdrawal of Independent Contractor Rule unlawful

RC

By

Last updated November 6, 20241 min read
Court finds withdrawal of Independent Contractor Rule unlawful

It’s official. The Independent Contractor (IC) Final Rule goes into effect immediately.

Surprised?

In Coalition for Workforce Innovation et al. v. Walsh, a federal Texas court ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) unlawfully delayed and withdrew the IC Final Rule.

When Trump was still in office, the IC Final Rule was set to go into effect March 8, 2021. But on Jan. 20, 2021, after the Biden Administration took its place in the White House, the rule was postponed. Then after more back and forth, the rule was withdrawn on May 6, 2021.

Now, thanks to the Texas court ruling, the withdrawal of the Final Rule is invalid.

Violated APA

The court determined that the DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it did not meet certain standards in rulemaking. One of which was due to the substantive nature of the changes, the DOL was required to provide a longer notice-and-comment period. And the court also noted the DOL didn’t consider any alternatives which were on the table. So, the court ruled the delay and withdrawal of the rule invalid.

There’s always been an issue with what constitutes an “independent contractor” under the FLSA and how to distinguish an IC from an employee. The Final Rule was attempting to fix and clarify the definition of an IC.

As you know, ICs aren’t employees and, therefore, they aren’t provided the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime protections.

No clarity

If you’re looking for clarity on what constitutes an IC, however, you’ll have to wait. This ruling doesn’t affect the tests that determine who’s an IC and who’s an employee. They’re still in flux.

Now, we wait to see if the Biden Administration will challenge or appeal the ruling. We could even possibly get a new rule. But for now, unfortunately, it’s more of the same.

We’ll let you know when and if anything else happens on this front.

Filed underEmployment Law
Share

Further Reading

  • Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K

    A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]

  • Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps

    Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]

  • Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims

    Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]

  • Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny

    Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]