TaskRabbit Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Walsh)

• Decision Date: 31 January 2019
• Docket Number: 526270
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the CLAIM OF Simone WALSH, Respondent. TaskRabbit Inc., Appellant. v. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 1323

92 N.Y.S.3d 750

In the MATTER OF the CLAIM OF Simone WALSH, Respondent.TaskRabbit Inc., Appellant.

v.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

526270

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

Calendar Date: January 10, 2019

Decided and Entered: January 31, 2019

Gibbons PC, New York City (Mitchell Boyarsky of counsel), for appellant.

Amanda FiggsGanter, Albany, for Simone Walsh, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 20, 2017, which ruled, among other things, that TaskRabbit Inc. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

TaskRabbit Inc. is engaged in the business of providing an online platform for connecting clients seeking to have certain odd jobs performed with individuals, known as taskers, who possess the skills and abilities to perform those jobs. Once an individual passes a background check, sets up an account on TaskRabbit's website and creates a profile, he or she becomes a tasker and may bid on jobs posted by clients through the platform. The client selects the tasker for the posted job and communicates directly with him or her regarding the job specifications and scope of work. Once the job is completed, the tasker provides an invoice to the client via the platform and is paid through an unaffiliated third-party payment provider that deducts the tasker's compensation, as well as a 20% fee due to TaskRabbit, from the client's credit card and remits the tasker's payment directly to his or her bank account.

In 2014, claimant became a tasker for approximately two months and, after she stopped participating on the platform, she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor awarded her benefits and found that TaskRabbit was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated based upon the existence of an employment relationship. TaskRabbit objected and requested a hearing that resulted in decisions by an Administrative Law Judge overruling this determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, disagreed and sustained the initial determination. TaskRabbit now appeals.

The sole issue is whether there was an employment relationship between TaskRabbit and claimant, as well as other similarly situated taskers who obtained jobs through use of the platform. Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see 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] ; Matter of Giordano [Tender Age PT Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 161 A.D.3d 1398, 1399, 77 N.Y.S.3d 734 [2018] ). Significant to such determination is whether the purported "employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results," with the latter being more important ( Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 N.Y.3d at 437, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 ; see Matter of Eidelson [Mulberry Tree Ctr. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 164 A.D.3d 981, 982, 83 N.Y.S.3d 353 [2018] ; Matter of Cowan [Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distr. Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 159 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 73 N.Y.S.3d 653 [2018], appeal dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1053, 88 N.Y.S.3d 408, 113 N.E.3d 464 [2018] ). Notably, incidental control is insufficient to establish an employment relationship (see Matter of Crystal [Medical Delivery Servs.-Commissioner of Labor], 150 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 55 N.Y.S.3d 518 [2017] ; Matter of Desravines [Logic Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 146 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 44 N.Y.S.3d 811 [2017] ).

By virtue of the nature of the platform, TaskRabbit exercised absolutely no control over the manner in which the taskers completed the jobs...