When PA 233 (the state siting le...
Yes! Although PA 233 will provide a mechanism for developers to bypass local zoning regulations in most circumstances in the Michigan Public...
Read MorePhone 517.381.0100
High Contrast
We are involved in our communities, our profession, and our clients' associations and activities.
Townships of all sizes rely on workers to carry out basic governmental functions and keep the township running smoothly. Although larger townships may be able to fill out a full roster of township employees and officials on a full-time basis, most Michigan townships rely on a mix of workers, some full time and some less so.
Townships also commonly rely on independent contractors to perform certain functions, often believing that an independent contractor arrangement is less burdensome than hiring a township employee. Although that is true when properly done, independent-contractor status is reserved only for those workers who are sufficiently autonomous and who do not rely on the township in completing the work or making a living. A township cannot simply declare someone an independent contractor, even if the worker agrees. Further complicating matters, Michigan law requires certain township positions to be classified as employees – regardless of whether those workers might meet the criteria to be independent contractors.
Far from a trivial difference, there are serious legal ramifications for classifying a worker and potential liability for any misclassification.
Most townships utilize a mix of employees and independent contractors to get work done. What’s the difference?
Broadly speaking, employees are regular workers for the township for whom the township provides the necessary supervision, tools/equipment, facilities, and training. Generally (but not always), employees are permanent workers for the township and are not hired simply to complete an isolated task or project. Employees are paid via payroll, payroll taxes are taken from their paychecks (both an employee and employer portion), and employees are issued a Form W-2 at year’s end. Employees are often eligible for township benefits and afforded legal protections in employment.
On the other hand, independent contractors run their own businesses and operate with a great deal of autonomy. The township may give general instruction and directions, but independent contractors control the methods for completing their assignments. Contractors generally provide their own workforce, tools/equipment, and training. They are often hired for very specific tasks or special, limited-duration projects. Independent contractors are paid via accounts payable, are responsible for their own tax burden (i.e., no payroll taxes), and are issued a Form 1099 at year’s end. Independent contractors lack most of the legal protections that exist for employees and are not eligible for township benefits.
Many state and federal laws require “employers” to undertake obligations on behalf of their “employees,” such as:
These protections, however, do not apply to independent contractors. They are responsible for their own insurance, and are not entitled to unemployment, minimum wage, overtime, or the protections of anti-discrimination law in the employment context. Independent contractors are also responsible for their own tax burdens.
Because federal and state law have those additional requirements for employees and not for independent contractors, townships often prefer to utilize independent contractors to avoid costly obligations related to the requirements listed above. Townships also may avoid providing employee benefits that might otherwise be due to township employees but not to independent contractors. Because employees must be paid overtime and contractors need not be, utilizing contractors is also generally a more predictable cost to townships as the fees will be set forth in advance and will be unlikely to vary from week to week or month to month. Independent contractors also require less direct supervision to get work done. In total, the diminished costs and reduced hassle of using independent contractors are undeniably enticing.
As we will discuss below, there are serious risks associated with properly classifying a worker. Therefore, it is extremely important to understand when someone may be classified as an independent contractor. Because independent contractors receive less legal protection than employees, employee-status is the default in classification. In other words, it is always safest to assume someone is an employee unless there is strong evidence that they may be classified as an independent contractor. Classification as an employee will never create legal liability. Misclassification as an independent contractor can absolutely create legal liability.
Proper classification goes well beyond the title that a worker is given or the designation that the parties agree to. Courts and government agencies in Michigan look to the following factors to determine proper classification:
Despite those tests and any detailed analysis of the factors presented above, Michigan law and the interpretations from courts and government agencies, dictate that certain township positions must be employees, regardless of the results of any balancing test or list of factors. Below are some of the township positions that frequently present classification questions for Michigan townships:
The classifying issue that most commonly impacts townships is for their assessors. Many of the factors discussed above would lead a township to believe they could hire an assessor as an independent contractor. However, an IRS interpretation suggests that assessors should be treated as township employees, at least for their statutory duties.
The IRS understands assessors to be “public officials” because (1) their position is created by a statute; (2) they are delegated a portion of the sovereign powers of government; (3) their powers and duties are defined by the legislature; (4) their duties are performed independently and without control of a superior power; (5) the office is permanent and continuous. The IRS treats “public officials” (at least for tax purposes) as “employees.” However, the IRS noted that assessors often work alongside “professional appraisers” and such appraisers are often properly classified as independent contractors.
While it is a somewhat close call, it is safest to treat assessors as employees at least as to their statutory duties. The statutory duties that must be completed by an employee are limited simply to supervising the preparation of the assessment roll and signing off on it. However, it is likely permissible to hire others (or the same person) to do the appraisal work that supports the assessor’s statutory duties. That hybrid approach limits liability by properly employing an assessor but allows the flexibility and other benefits of contractor relationships as to the majority of the work actually performed. As always, simply classifying all workers involved as employees is the simplest and most risk-adverse approach.
If you are interested in re-visiting the classification of your assessor, contact your township attorney to ensure all necessary steps are taken.
It was formerly a common practice for townships to utilize independent contractor arrangements for building officials. However, in 2012, the Michigan legislature amended the Construction Code Act to define “building official” as:
[A]n individual who is employed by a governmental subdivision and is charged with the administration and enforcement of the code and who is registered in compliance with article 10 of the skilled trades regulation act, MCL 339.6001 to 339.6023. This individual may also be an employee of a private organization. (emphasis added)
In 2015, the Michigan Attorney General provided an opinion (OAG No. 7285) interpreting that language to mean that a building official must be an employee of the municipality they serve. The Attorney General said that the Legislature’s use of the word “employed” could only mean that they intended for building officials to be employees.
Attorney General opinions are not binding authority and there are reasonable points to disagree with the interpretation. However, the Attorney General’s office has also taken an interest in pursuing worker misclassification, and therefore, adherence to the Attorney General’s opinion is the easiest way to avoid a potential misclassification. For that reason, it is safest to treat building officials as employees.
However, the statute also states that building officials “may also be an employee of a private organization.” The Attorney General interpreted that to mean that an independent contractor (perhaps even the same person employed as the building official) could perform duties that assist a township in the administration and enforcement of the State Construction Code.
Except for the specific examples above, many township positions can be filled by independent contractors unless the statute creating the position states or indicates that the position must be filled by an employee. For those positions without a clear answer in the law, townships should contact their legal counsel and engage in the analysis put forth in the tests above.
We frequently get requests about whether grounds maintenance staff or cemetery sextons may be independent contractors. For these positions, there is no law that provides us with an answer. Therefore, we default to the factors and tests above. Because these are fact-specific questions that are unique to each position and each township, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. However, in many cases, so long as the township does not seek to exercise tight control over the work and the worker, independent contractor arrangements can be a solution for townships.
With the obvious benefits of utilizing contractors, why wouldn’t townships simply classify everyone that way? Put simply, the “employee” is the default setting for a worker unless the employer can prove that an independent contractor arrangement is allowed and fits with the tests discussed above. If not, the worker could be misclassified and could expose the township to liability. Misclassification generally results in paying back whatever would have been owed in taxes or compensation and in many cases also results in extra penalties, especially if the misclassification is deemed intentional.
Employers must provide workers’ compensation coverage to employees, but not to independent contractors. In return, employees cannot sue for on-the-job injuries where workers’ compensation covers the issue. Where a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor and suffers and on-the-job injury, Michigan’s workers’ compensation statute provides that the injured worker can sue the employer, and the employer can be fined up to $1,000 per day for violations and employer representatives can even face jail time (though unlikely unless the violation is flagrant and intentional).
In some cases, an agreement with an independent contractor results in a set fee for services that turns out to be below the minimum wage, or the employee works in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. If those situations arise and the worker was misclassified as an independent contractor, the township may find itself in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If a worker was not paid the minimum wage or overtime because of a misclassification, the Fair Labor Standards Act allows for penalties including payment of the wages or overtime owed to the employee, plus an equal amount in damages (essentially double wages as a penalty), with the possibility of additional fines for willful violation.
If your township takes action against a worker who bands together with others to discuss or raise concerns about wages, benefits, or working conditions, the township may be violating labor laws that prohibit adverse employment action for those who engage in protected concerted activity or union organizing if that worker turns out to be misclassified as an independent contractor.
Misclassification might also mean that you suddenly owe certain employee benefits (pension and other retirement benefits, healthcare, etc.) to individuals who the township believed were not entitled to benefits as independent contractors. If that individual would’ve been entitled to benefits per your township’s written policies, you could be on the hook for benefits after the fact.
Aggrieved workers who were misclassified as independent contractors might also retroactively sue under anti-discrimination statutes if they believe they were discriminated against on the basis of a protected-class status. Independent contractors would not have the same ability to sue in most cases.
Employers owe certain tax obligations when dealing with employees that are not present when working with independent contractors. Tax implications of misclassification include payment of:
If an employer “unintentionally” fails to deduct and withhold the correct amount from an employee’s wages because the employee was not treated as an employee, the employer is liable for 1.5 percent of the wages paid to the employee and 20 percent of FICA taxes. In cases where the employer “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof,” the amount of tax liability shall be, “in addition to other penalties provided by law, . . . a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over.”
In “unintentional” cases, the “employer” is liable for the penalty while in “intentional” cases, this liability is extended to “any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed . . ..” A “responsible” person can be an individual who signs payroll accounts, signs payroll returns, or holds an officer position.
While there are certainly risks to misclassifying workers, a properly executed independent contractor arrangement (with a contract prepared in consultation with legal counsel) is a great tool to streamline operations and minimize costs. Although certain township positions such as the assessor or building official have some nuances to their classification, other positions can be made contractors so long as they pass the tests outlined in this Article.
If your township is looking to bring in new personnel or is simply reviewing existing arrangements, feel free to contact the municipal and employment law experts at Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes, PLC to ensure that your workers are properly classified.
By Chad Karsten
This publication is intended for educational purposes only. This communication highlights specific areas of law and is not legal advice. The reader should consult an attorney to determine how the information applies to any specific situation.
Yes! Although PA 233 will provide a mechanism for developers to bypass local zoning regulations in most circumstances in the Michigan Public...
Read MoreIn 2023, the Michigan legislature passed Act 235, requiring energy companies to meet continuously increasing clean energy standards. By 2040...
Read MoreIn 2018, you may recall there were two employment-related ballot initiatives set to appear on the general election ballot. One of them, the ...
Read MoreAt Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC, we’ve been helping municipalities, franchised businesses, employers, and more with their legal needs since 2008. We’d love to learn how we can help you, too.