Skip to main content

Matter of Travis (Commr. of Labor)

N.Y. App. Div.April 9, 2015No. 518614Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lynch, Lahtinen, Garry, Devine
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Appellate Division affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision finding that newspaper delivery claimant and others similarly situated were employees of Gannett, not independent contractors, making Gannett liable for unemployment insurance contributions.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved newspaper delivery workers for Gannett Satellite Information Network (which publishes USA Today and other newspapers). Gannett classified these delivery workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The state's Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disagreed and said these workers should be considered employees who are entitled to unemployment insurance coverage. Gannett appealed this decision to the court. **What the Court Decided** The appellate court sided with the workers and upheld the Appeal Board's ruling. The court confirmed that Gannett must treat these newspaper delivery workers as employees and pay unemployment insurance contributions for them, rather than classifying them as independent contractors. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is significant because it protects workers from being misclassified as independent contractors when they should legally be considered employees. When workers are properly classified as employees, they gain important benefits including eligibility for unemployment insurance if they lose their job. The decision reinforces that companies cannot simply call workers "contractors" to avoid paying for benefits and protections that employees are entitled to under the law.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.