Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law Survives Preemption Challenge | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law Survives Preemption Challenge | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts's September 26, 2013 decision in Massachusetts Delivery Association v. Coakley, in which it denied a preemption challenge to Massachusetts's independent contractor statute. The plaintiff claimed that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts the independent contractor statute, which increases its members' labor costs and prices by effectively requiring workers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Noting that the FAAAA preempts laws that relate to prices, routes or services of a motor carrier and the transportation of property, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the independent contractor statute does not address transportation services or the movement of goods.

Ogletree Deakins: Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law Survives Preemption Challenge

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 08 Oct 2013Massachusetts, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts's September 26, 2013 decision in Massachusetts Delivery Association v. Coakley, in which it denied a preemption challenge to Massachusetts's independent contractor statute. The plaintiff claimed that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts the independent contractor statute, which increases its members' labor costs and prices by effectively requiring workers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Noting that the FAAAA preempts laws that relate to prices, routes or services of a motor carrier and the transportation of property, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the independent contractor statute does not address transportation services or the movement of goods.