dependent contractors, many firms attempt to avoid the costs and responsibilities associated with employees by classifying some workers as independent contractors. Governmental agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting workerÆs rights and with the enforcement of employment law, however, do not routinely accept employer classifications of workers as independent contractors. Rather, such governmental agencies apply a set of evaluative criteria known collectively as the ôeconomic realities testö to establish an independent contractor status for an individual worker. At its core, the focus of the economic realities tests is an assessment of the implication of an independent contractor classification that the worker so classified performs her or his work and functions as an economic entity independently of the firm. Among other things, a classification as an independent contractor implies that a worker (a) buys the materials used in the performance of work for the company, (b) provides her or his own tools to do any work for the company, (c) decides for herself or himself when he will perform work for the company, and (d) makes her or his own determinations of how any work for the company will be performed. If the foregoing criteria (as well as others) are not met, the individual will be determined to be an employee, and not an independent contractor. The conditions of CliffÆs work relationship with Port Alice Furniture appear to be in clear contradiction with the independent contractor criteria (i.e., Cliff uses tools owned by and provided to him by the company, the company sets and enforces his work schedule, and the company specifies and monitors his work methods. Port Alice Furniture, therefore, has misclassified Cliff as an independent contractor. In reality, Cliff is an employee of Port Alice Furniture.
Disparate impact has been defined by EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Guidelines to constitu...