As discussed here, in January 2021, in the waning days of the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Final Rule setting forth for the first time a standard for differentiating employees and independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The scheduled effective date of the new rule was March 8, 2021.

Shortly after the Biden administration took office, the Department first delayed the effective date of the rule and then issued a new Final Rule withdrawing the Trump-era standard, as discussed here.

Various business groups filed suit in federal court in Texas challenging the Biden administration’s actions.  Earlier this week, in Coalition for Workforce Innovation v. Walsh, Judge Marcia Crone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a 41-page ruling addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  In short, the court invalidated the Biden administration’s actions and reinstated the Trump-era rule.  The court made two key determinations:

First, the court concluded that the Department’s rulemaking to delay the effective date of the Trump-era Final Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) in three respects:

  1. by providing only a 19-day notice-and-comment period, rather than the 30-day period the courts have recognized as the minimum under the APA, without adequate grounds;
  2. by limiting the content of responses to the binary question of whether or not to delay the effective date, thereby unduly limiting the scope of comments; and
  3. by making the delay effective immediately upon the issuance of the Final Rule implementing the delay, rather than allowing the 30-day waiting period set forth in the APA, without good cause.

Second, the court held that the Department’s rulemaking to withdraw the Trump-era Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because it restricted comments to the question of whether or not to withdraw the Trump-era rule, rather than allowing the public to propose other alternatives such as modifying the standard set forth in that rule.  The court concluded that “[b]y refusing to consider alternatives to the total withdrawal of the Independent Contractor Rule, the DOL failed to ‘consider important aspects of the problem before [it]’—the lack of clarity of the economic realities test and the need for regulatory certainty.”  (Slip Op. at 38 (citation omitted).)

Based on these rulings, the court vacated the Biden administration’s rulemakings and determined that the Trump-era rule “became effective as of March 8, 2021, the rule’s original effective date, and remains in effect.”  (Slip Op. at 40-41.)

An appeal by the Department to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seems likely.  Alternatively, or in conjunction with an appeal, the Department may elect to engage in further rulemaking.  Stay tuned for further developments in this litigation and associated rulemaking and, of course, keep an eye on the evolving approaches to the independent contractor issue under state law.

Back to Wage and Hour Defense Blog Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Wage and Hour Defense Blog posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.