Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Debora)

• Decision Date: 13 January 2022
• Docket Number: 531878
• Citation: 201 A.D.3d 1164,162 N.Y.S.3d 191
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Claim of Fausto DEBORA, Respondent. Legal Interpreting Services, Inc., Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

201 A.D.3d 1164

162 N.Y.S.3d 191

In the MATTER OF the Claim of Fausto DEBORA, Respondent.Legal Interpreting Services, Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

531878

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: November 15, 2021

Decided and Entered: January 13, 2022

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York City (Jerrold F. Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, Albany, for Fausto Debora, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J. Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 3, 2020, which ruled, among other things, that Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (hereinafter LIS) provides foreign language interpreting services, among other services, to its clients, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (hereinafter ICE), and, to that end, maintains a database of individual linguists, such as claimant. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits in January 2017, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that claimant was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for remuneration paid to him and others similarly situated, effective at least the first quarter of 2014. LIS appeals.

"It is well[ ]settled that whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the ... [B]oard, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary decision" ( Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 N.Y.3d 433, 437, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 [2010] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Lowry [Uber Tech., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 189 A.D.3d 1863, 1863, 138 N.Y.S.3d 238 [2020], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1045, 154 N.Y.S.3d 569, 176 N.E.3d 306 [2021] ). Although "no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important" ( Matter of Lee [AXA Advisors LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 196 A.D.3d 975, 976, 152 N.Y.S.3d 513 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Rodriguez [Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.-Commissioner of Labor], 193 A.D.3d 1190, 1191, 147 N.Y.S.3d 187 [2021] ). "Further, an organization [that] screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship" ( Matter of Millennium Med. Care, P.C. [Commissioner of Labor], 175 A.D.3d 755, 757, 106 N.Y.S.3d 432 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Bin Yuan [Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 140 A.D.3d 1550, 1551, 34 N.Y.S.3d 706 [2016], lv dismissed 29 N.Y.3d 968, 52 N.Y.S.3d 277, 74 N.E.3d 660 [2017] ). Finally, "[s]ubstantial evidence is a minimal standard requiring less than a preponderance of the evidence. As such, if the evidence reasonably supports the Board's choice, we may not interpose our judgment to reach a contrary conclusion" ( Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 35 N.Y.3d 131, 136–137, 125 N.Y.S.3d 640, 149 N.E.3d 401 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Rodriguez [Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.-Commissioner of Labor], 193 A.D.3d at 1191, 147 N.Y.S.3d 187 ).

The record reveals that claimant worked as a linguist for ICE through a different vendor prior to LIS being awarded the ICE contract. When claimant heard that LIS was awarded the contract, he inquired about fulfilling the same role for LIS.¹ LIS reviewed claimant's resume to ensure that he had the proper qualifications and security clearances and had achieved the appropriate test scores on a government-approved language test, all required by ICE. LIS and claimant negotiated claimant's pay rate, and claimant was required to sign a written agreement with LIS confirming that rate, among other things. When LIS receives a request for interpretation/translation services from ICE, it sends out a mass email to the linguists in its database that were approved to work for...