Dive Brief:
- Two people paid to screen films and related duties for Netflix are taking the movie streaming service to court, claiming they are being misclassified as independent contractors but they are actually full-time employees, according to the Hollywood Reporter. As such, they want to be paid overtime, paid vacation and holidays, health insurance and a 401(k) plan.
- Known as "juicers," these specific workers are paid $10 per viewing to choose images and videos that are then fed into Netflix's technology that helps members decide what content they want to stream or watch using rented DVDs.
- Netflix had no comment on the lawsuits, other than to say in court filings that the two employees who filed suit (in different locations) are bound by agreements that require any employees disputes to be handled via arbitration.
Dive Insight:
The Netflix case is another in a string of cases nationwide whereby arbitration clauses have come under fire, though there have been conflicting federal court decisions on these types of cases.
For example, in May the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago agreed with the NLRB and ruled an arbitration provision violated the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA). Only one week later, the Eighth Circuit rejected this view, ruling that class arbitration waivers are permissible.
Kate Gold, an attorney at Drinker Biddle & Reath, told the Hollywood Reporter that employment laws lag behind today's labor economy, noting other similar cases involving Uber drivers and Grubhub delivery delivery people - two "on demand" employers.