Handyman claimed he was improperly classified as a contractor

Our client was a small business that focused on the rental and sales of residential properties. In 2013, it engaged a handyman to help make repairs at the properties it managed and to upgrade them prior to rental or sale. The handyman agreed he’d work as a contractor, since he did odd jobs for others, he said, and would not be engaged on a full-time basis by our client. The relationship did not, however, last long, and, though the handyman was paid for all work he reported, he filed suit after his worked ceased. Without first serving a demand letter, he claimed he was improperly classified as a contractor when he was in fact an employee. Though his wage claim was small – less than $1,500 – his legal fees were not, and he refused to settle the case at a reasonable level. We were retained after suit had been ongoing for a period of time.

Result: Despite substantial effort, we were unable to persuade the handyman to settle at a reasonable level. The case was forced to a jury trial on what amounted to a suit for exorbitant legal fees under the Massachusetts Wage Act. After a two-day trial, our client was vindicated. The jury found that the handyman was not owed any wages. It issued a damages award of $0.