Skip to content
Home
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • People
  • Business Services
  • Personal Services
  • The Latest

About Shulman Rogers

About Shulman Rogers
Diversity
Community
Careers

Our People

View All Attorneys
Attorneys
Paralegals
Key Administrative Staff
Women in Law
Careers

Business Services and Industries

View All Business Services & Industries
  • Business and Financial Services
  • Cannabis Law
  • Commercial Lending
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • Entertainment Law
  • Government Contracts
  • Hospitality Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Startups and Emerging Growth Companies
  • Real Estate
  • Tax

Personal Services

View All Personal Services
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Defense
  • Divorce and Family Law
  • Guardianship
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Personal Injury
  • Dental Medical Malpractice
  • Real Estate
  • Wills, Trusts, Estates and Probate
View Services A-Z
  • Home
  • About
    • About Shulman Rogers
    • Diversity
    • Community
    • Careers
  • People
    • Attorneys
    • Paralegals
    • Key Administrative Staff
    • Women in Law
    • Careers
  • Business Services
  • Personal Services
  • The Latest
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

The Latest

Employment Law Alert: $9.3 Million Judgment Highlights High Stakes of Employee Misclassification

November 14, 2025


Graphic that describes "Employment Law Alert"

Employment Law Alert: $9.3 Million Judgment Highlights High Stakes of Employee Misclassification

Deciding whether to classify a worker as an employee or an independent contractor is a nuanced and complicated decision in an area that is constantly changing. A recent $9.3 million judgment against a Virginia medical staffing company shows just how catastrophic misclassification can be. In Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Medical Staffing of America LLC, Steadfast Medical Staffing kept a registry of nurses it connected with client healthcare facilities. The nurses were classified as independent contractors. The DOL brought an action against Steadfast, which made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit applied the “economic realities” test to determine whether the nurses were employees or independent contractors. This test requires analysis of six factors which are (1) the employer’s degree of control over the worker, (2) the worker’s opportunities for profit or loss, (3) the worker’s investment in equipment/materials, (4) the degree of skill required of the worker, (5) the permanence of the worker’s position, and (6) how integral the worker’s services are to the employer.

By analyzing these factors, the Fourth Circuit determined that the nurses were employees, not independent contractors. Although physicians at client facilities supervised the typical nursing tasks the nurses performed, Steadfast exercised significant control over the nurses by unilaterally determining their pay, assigning nurses to specific locations, and monitoring and enforcing standards of performance at the client facilities. The court also held that the nurses’ services were integral to Steadfast’s business model centered on supplying nurses to healthcare facilities. The fact that the nurses signed an independent contractor agreement after they were hired as employees was of no significance under the “economic realities” test.

As a result, Steadfast had misclassified its employees, and the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s $9.3 million judgment. As this case makes clear, classifying workers is an extremely difficult decision with very expensive consequences for misclassification.

Complicating this matter further, the Department of Labor recently announced it would be departing from the “economic realities” test to a more employer-friendly test in its enforcement actions. The “total activity or situation which controls” test requires employers to consider (1) the extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal’s business, (2) the permanency of the relationship, (3) the amount of the alleged contractor’s investment in facilities and equipment, (4) the nature and degree of control by the principal, (5) the alleged contractor’s opportunities for profit and loss, (6) the amount of initiative, judgment or foresight required in open market competition with others for the success of the claimed independent contractor, and (7) the degree of independent business organization and operation.

We understand this can be a very confusing area for employers. We are here to help. Please do not hesitate to reach out for assistance related to employee classification.

 


CONTACT

Meredith “Merry” Campbell

Joy C. Einstein

Nicole Windsor

Alexander I. Castelli

Drew T. Ricci

Lauren M. Upton

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

To receive Employment Law Alerts and other timely news and information from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE to subscribe.

 

Stay up to date with all the latest news and events.

Receive Our Newsletter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Receive our Newsletter
12505 Park Potomac Avenue
Potomac, MD 20854
PH: 301-230-5200
8200 Greensboro Drive
Suite 701
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 703-684-5200
1100 New York Avenue NW
East Tower, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
PH: 202-872-0400
277 South Washington Street
Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
PH: 703-682-8267
The Banner Building at McHenry Row
1215 East Fort Avenue, Suite 301
Baltimore, MD 21230
PH: 410-520-1340
  • © 2025 Shulman Rogers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Careers
  • Contact Us