Salary not paid and travel expense not reimbursed

[xxu2]

What is the name of your state? NJ

There are multiple parties involved in this case.

1. X (one of the biggest companies in IT) has a client A (in TX) and A need a consultant to work for them.
2. X's partner (B, based in NJ) got the assignment from X to find a consultant to work for A
3. B found consultant C (NY based company) for this job and C has been working for A for a while.
4. C wants to take a vacation for three weeks and C found James to cover him for this period.
5. James acts as an independent contractor and signed a contract with C's company. His salary will be paid by C with all these in place: signed timesheets (by manager) and money received from X. (X should pay the consultant through issuing check through --> B --> C --> James). C sent an e-mail to James to confirm that his travel expense (NJ--TX) will be covered even under an unbillable situation.
6. When James went TX to work for A, A didn't provide a badge for James. When James requested his own badge, the A's manager said that it would take longer than 3 weeks for him to get the badge and by that time he should have finished his temp. job. Therefore, it was not necessary. Actually, the whole working team knew James was using C's badge (from co-worker to manager). Every body was joking and laughing him when James mentioned this to them on the very first day of working. No one though it was an issue. So James used C's badge to get in.
7. James was caught by the security due to using C's badge on the third week of the job. "A" had set James "clean" after a few day's investigation. The police was called at the time of the incident and the police said it was no issue and set him free right on the spot.
8. "A" cancelled all the working assignments with X due to this incident. X lost big monkey because of that.
9. James had X's on-site manager's signatures for the first two weeks timesheet (40 hr/week) and travel expense reports. Since this catch, he didn't get his third week signature at all since X didn't allow James to contact anyone in X's company after this incident. X refused to pay a penny. Therefore, C didn't pay James so far. The travel expense didn't get reimbursement yet. The total is around $10,000.

We highly appreciate your advices.

Lucy

 

[Mister Darcy]

I am not a lawyer, just an IT consultant. I believe that you should look into filing a lien against the Texas company for unpaid wages. I assume that you were a 1099 of company X; however, under Texas law if You did not have complete control over your working conditions (Hours of work, for instance) you would be considered a defacto employee. I think it might be something to look into. Here's a good website: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/la.toc.htm

 

[JETX]

Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee"

Bottom line:
J is not an X as Y does not equal Q.
So, with that, A is free to marry B, as long as C is not aware of the M, N or T.

Now, if you would like to ask a REAL question and get rid of the quasi-trigonometry problem....

 

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state? NJ

There are multiple parties involved in this case.

1. X (one of the biggest companies in IT) has a client A (in TX) and A need a consultant to work for them.
2. X's partner (B, based in NJ) got the assignment from X to find a consultant to work for A
3. B found consultant C (NY based company) for this job and C has been working for A for a while.
4. C wants to take a vacation for three weeks and C found James to cover him for this period.
5. James acts as an independent contractor and signed a contract with C's company. His salary will be paid by C with all these in place: signed timesheets (by manager) and money received from X. (X should pay the consultant through issuing check through --> B --> C --> James). C sent an e-mail to James to confirm that his travel expense (NJ--TX) will be covered even under an unbillable situation.
6. When James went TX to work for A, A didn't provide a badge for James. When James requested his own badge, the A's manager said that it would take longer than 3 weeks for him to get the badge and by that time he should have finished his temp. job. Therefore, it was not necessary. Actually, the whole working team knew James was using C's badge (from co-worker to manager). Every body was joking and laughing him when James mentioned this to them on the very first day of working. No one though it was an issue. So James used C's badge to get in.
7. James was caught by the security due to using C's badge on the third week of the job. "A" had set James "clean" after a few day's investigation. The police was called at the time of the incident and the police said it was no issue and set him free right on the spot.
8. "A" cancelled all the working assignments with X due to this incident. X lost big monkey because of that.
9. James had X's on-site manager's signatures for the first two weeks timesheet (40 hr/week) and travel expense reports. Since this catch, he didn't get his third week signature at all since X didn't allow James to contact anyone in X's company after this incident. X refused to pay a penny. Therefore, C didn't pay James so far. The travel expense didn't get reimbursement yet. The total is around $10,000.

We highly appreciate your advices.

Lucy

It took a few attempts, but the answer to your question is X=6.

 

[Mister Darcy]

Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee"

And you could of course ignore JETX's advice had there been any. The fact is that employment under Texas law is defined thusly:

"Employment" means any service, including service
in interstate commerce, that is performed for wages or under a
contract of hire, whether written or oral or express or implied.
The term does not include any service performed by an individual for
wages if it is shown that the individual is free from control or
direction in the performance of the service, both under any
contract of service and in fact.

So, because you were not free from control or direction in the performance of your service and since you were not in FACT an employee, you were a DEFACTO employee of company A.

As to whether or not Texas law allows an unpaid wages lien is irrelevant since I never said there was one.

OP, as I originally stated:

Either go after company A as an independent contractor. This would entail taking them to court and getting a lien against them.

OR

Pursue this as a defacto employee thru the Texas department of labor.

 

[JETX]

And you could of course ignore JETX's advice had there been any.

More crap from the idiot.....

Don't we find it interesting how this idiot provides what he claims to be a definition by Texas.... but doesn't say where it came from.... or provide ANY statutory citation??

So, lets give you a REAL definition..... from the Texas Labor Code:
§ 61.001. DEFINITIONS.
(3) "Employee" means an individual who is employed by an employer for compensation. The term does not include:
(A) a person related to the employer or the employer's spouse within the first or second degree by consanguinity or affinity, as determined under Chapter 573, Government Code; or
(B) an independent contractor.
Source: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/LA/content/htm/la.002.00.000061.00.htm#61.001.00

The ONLY recourse that is available is for the unpaid employee to file a complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission. And that is ONLY available to an EMPLOYEE. If the OP is an independent contractor (as it APPEARS), the OP's ONLY recourse is litigation.

As to whether or not Texas law allows an unpaid wages lien is irrelevant since I never said there was one.

You said, "I believe that you should look into filing a lien against the Texas company for unpaid wages."
So, was that a guess (which is irresponsible on a LEGAL ADVICE forum) or you are an idiot. Which is it??

Either go after company A as an independent contractor. This would entail taking them to court and getting a lien against them.

More stupidity. If a judgment is rendered, there are much easier and simpler ways to enforce a judgment against a company. Filing a 'judgment lien' (the PROPER term) against a corporation without pursuing the other more efficient methods is usually a waste of time and money.

Pursue this as a defacto employee thru the Texas department of labor.

Okay. You have answered our questions. You are an idiot. Let me be clear on this.... there is no such thing as a defacto employee. There are simply too many variables to determine whether some one is in fact an employee or an independent contractor. Hell, even the US Labor department doesn't have clear instructions on the differences.
From the DOL:
"The U. S. Supreme Court has on a number of occasions indicated that there is no single rule or test for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of the FLSA. The Court has held that it is the total activity or situation which controls."
Source: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs13.htm

And from the Texas Workforce Commission:
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/appx_e_twc_ic_test.html
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/appx_d_irs_ic_test.html

So much for this 'defacto employee' crap from the idiot, huh??

 

[Mister Darcy]

Lucy,

Just take this advice from one IT consultant to another. This happens all the time where a fly-by-night body shop will attempt to cheat you out of your final check.

What you do is you get yourself a Texas lawyer, file a lien on the client, they go screaming to your body shop and, Voila!, you get paid.

To JetX: If you cannot engage in an argument without resorting to name calling then just shut up. Also, learn to read an entire statute, not just the bits and pieces that suit you. When you chastize someone for not citing a statute, please make damn sure that you do the same thing (Citing what the Supreme court said without including any context whatsoever is total hypocrisy on your part)

 

[JETX]

To JetX: If you cannot engage in an argument without resorting to name calling then just shut up. Also, learn to read an entire statute, not just the bits and pieces that suit you. When you chastize someone for not citing a statute, please make damn sure that you do the same thing (Citing what the Supreme court said without including any context whatsoever is total hypocrisy on your part)

Awwww, poor baby!! Did you get your poor little feelings hurt??
Hell, you might be the best damn IT guy in the world, but you are still a legal idiot. So, stay in your little IT world and beat your chest all you want. Leave the law to those of us who are experienced.... and qualified. Your erroneous crap is more harmful than your not responding at all.

 

[Mister Darcy]

Awwww, poor baby!! Did you get your poor little feelings hurt??
Hell, you might be the best damn IT guy in the world, but you are still a legal idiot. So, stay in your little IT world and beat your chest all you want. Leave the law to those of us who are experienced.... and qualified. Your erroneous crap is more harmful than your not responding at all.

Nope, feelings not hurt at all. I'm kind of enjoying this. Let's review. According to you, this is the CORRECT legal answer:

"Bottom line:
J is not an X as Y does not equal Q.
So, with that, A is free to marry B, as long as C is not aware of the M, N or T."


Now, is your answer due to a lack of reading comprehension skills? I think it must be because when you cited 61.001 paragraph (3) you somehow failed to read paragraph (5). Didn't you?

You didn't respond to my question about that supreme court thing that you cited? What was the case? Did it concern the I.T. industry? I don't believe you know! Yet here you are citing it, cutting and pasting from a DOL factsheet.

Bottom Line: Your answer to the OP was wrong and very irresponsible. In fact, you left her with the impression that nothing could be done. My response to her will result in her contacting a Texas lawyer (a REAL lawyer) who will guide her on the true path to enlightenment.

So, JETX, why not think up another name to call me and respond? Or, hey, this is a pretty wild idea, but why not give the OP some REAL advice?

 

[cbg]

May I suggest locking this thread? Take it outside, boys.

 

[JETX]

Nope, feelings not hurt at all. I'm kind of enjoying this. Let's review. According to you, this is the CORRECT legal answer

sar·casm, n
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm.

And though this idiot still doesn't recognize his ignorance, the facts remain:
Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee".

You didn't respond to my question about that supreme court thing that you cited?

You are truly brain-dead. I never cited any Supreme Court ruling in this thread. I only included a DOL reference to Supreme Court opinion.

And though this idiot still doesn't recognize his ignorance, the facts remain:
Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee".
Both of them being erroneous claims made by this 'educationally-challenged' nitwit!!

 

[Mister Darcy]

sar·casm, n
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm.

And though this idiot still doesn't recognize his ignorance, the facts remain:
Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee".


You are truly brain-dead. I never cited any Supreme Court ruling in this thread. I only included a DOL reference to Supreme Court opinion.

And though this idiot still doesn't recognize his ignorance, the facts remain:
Ignore the post by 'Mr Darcy', as there is NOTHING in it that is legally accurate.
There is no such thing in Texas as an 'unpaid wage lien'.
There is nothing in Texas law as to your being a "defacto employee".
Both of them being erroneous claims made by this 'educationally-challenged' nitwit!!

Not again?

Sheesh, first you can't answer two simple questions and then you once again show your lack of reading comprehension with your definition of "sarcasm".

First to the two questions:

1. What happened to paragraph (5) ?

2. In what context was the supreme court "opinion" issued? By the way, reread my post. I never said "ruling" either. (Again with that darn comprehension problem). *


As to your definition of "sarcasm", well, you read that wrong too. (big surprise there)*.

It is not a form of wit, it is a form of "satirical wit" and it is not marked by the use of "sarcastic" language, it is marked by the use of bitter, caustic and often ironic language. It may be a minor point, but your use of the word itself to define itself only highlights your lack of reading skills.


* sarcasm

 

[cbg]

Mr. Darcy, since you're so convinced that your answers are correct, suppose YOU post some links backing you up?

Please post a link to the law defining an unpaid wage lien and an employee's right to file such.

Please post a link to the law in which an defacto employee status is defined.

In other words, why don't YOU put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Mister Darcy]

Mr. Darcy, since you're so convinced that your answers are correct, suppose YOU post some links backing you up?

Please post a link to the law defining an unpaid wage lien and an employee's right to file such.

Please post a link to the law in which an defacto employee status is defined.

In other words, why don't YOU put your money where your mouth is?

I already did. In my very first post I included a link to the Texas State Labor statutes because I figured the OP might just want to read the whole thing for herself.

There is nothing called an "unpaid wage lien" and I never said that there was. I gave the OP two possible choices:

One was that she could file a lien for her unpaid wages on the client company. This was misconstrued by JETX as some sort of a claim to a legal term.


Again, Defacto emnployee is not a legal term and I have never claimed that it was. Generally a person who receives a W2 is an employee, while one who receives a 1099 is an independant contractor. However, it has been determined by Congress in 1986 that for an IT worker to be considered an independant contractor they must meet 20 specific questions or they are technically considered to be employees, even if they do not receive a W2.

Texs statute 61.001 clearly points this out in its definition of Employment in paragraph (5) which I quoted in my second post. My problem with JETX is that he cited this same statute but included only paragraph (3). So my suggestion to the poster was to perhaps contact the Texas Department of Labor to see if they could be of help to her.

That said, I was the only person here to offer any advice at all to the OP. The advice offered by JETX was purely intended to be malicious and nothing more. At the least, my advice would cause the OP to contact a Texas attorney.

As for the back and forth between JETX and myself, I quite agree with you that it should stop. Apparently we both like to argue; however, he started it and I am merely responding to his insults.

 

[cbg]

So why don't you decide to be the bigger man and let it drop? The rest of us are getting quite bored with listening to you.