Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Eiber Translations, Inc. (Commr. of Labor)
Citations: 143 A.D.3d 1080; 41 N.Y.S.3d 140Docket: 521187
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 20, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Eiber Translations, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which ruled that it owed additional unemployment insurance contributions due to the classification of its interpreters as employees rather than independent contractors. The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reviewed the case, noting that the determination of an employer-employee relationship is a factual question, upheld if supported by substantial evidence. The court highlighted that an employer-employee relationship typically exists when the employer exercises control over the means and results of the work. In this case, Eiber did not exert such control; it merely required interpreters to have relevant experience to be listed in its database, did not enter into contracts with them, and offered no supervision, evaluation, or training. Interpreters were not restricted from working with competitors and were not provided with tools or benefits. Eiber's role was limited to facilitating client-interpreter selection, with interpreters having the autonomy to accept or decline assignments and to decide how to complete their work. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision, supporting Eiber's position that the interpreters were independent contractors. The interpreter submits invoices to Eiber at a self-determined hourly rate, while Eiber bills the client for the total amount plus an additional fee for facilitating the services. Legal precedents indicate that the interpreters operated independently, with Eiber serving primarily as an intermediary. Despite Eiber's practices, such as paying 'bust fees' for canceled assignments and addressing client complaints, these factors do not demonstrate sufficient control to establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, Eiber's other arguments are considered irrelevant. The decision is reversed, and the matter is sent back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further action consistent with this ruling.