A glance at any list detailing the most dangerous jobs in America will reveal a number of occupations found on and around construction sites. The hands that build everything from suburban homes to massive skyscrapers are well-acquainted with the often perilous situations found within the construction industry, and their unique and varied skills are highly in demand. Minnesota lawmakers want to make sure they get paid accordingly.
On October 24, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld a district court’s decision denying Minnesota construction firms and trade associations a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of an updated law against the worker misclassification of independent contractors. After a test used to determine the status of workers was expanded in 2024, a group of plaintiffs that included the Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors filed suit against the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MDLI) and the Minnesota Attorney General.
The suit claimed the expanded test for classifying independent contractors was too vague and violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. With both the lower court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreeing, the next step for this employment law battle might be before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
That Edifice Isn’t Going To Build Itself
Unlike full-time employees, independent contractors are usually brought onto a job for a specified period of time. A written contract lays out the agreed-upon details, such as the job description, the expected pay, and when the employment is scheduled to be terminated. While independent contractors can have flexibility in their hours and a higher rate of pay, the classification keeps them from benefits enjoyed by full-time employees, like insurance coverage, retirement plans, and workers’ compensation.
Minnesota state law uses a test to keep construction general contractors and subcontractors from misclassifying workers who should be considered full-time employees as independent contractors. In 2024, the state legislature expanded the test from nine to 14 questions. Violators face fines of up to $10,000 for each instance of misclassification, plus $1,000 per day for anyone who interferes with an investigation being conducted by state officials.
Claiming the new test was overly onerous, the plaintiffs took their grievances to federal court. Targeting MDLI Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach and Attorney General Keith Ellison, their complaint claimed the new test requirements were vague and not in step with how interactions with independent contractors actually work. They also alleged that the fines imposed violated protections provided under the Eighth Amendment. After failing to procure a preliminary injunction in lower court, they tried their luck at the Eighth Circuit.
Tote That Hod (Do They Still Use Hods?)
While agreeing that the contractors had standing to contest the changes made to the Minnesota law, the three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their vagueness claims. Terms such as “invoice” and “main expenses and costs” were not considered beyond what people of ordinary intelligence should be able to recognize and understand.
The panel was also dubious of constitutional violations caused by the fines, with the main reason being that none have been issued. It cited a proportionality test built into the law to be used by enforcement authorities as a proper yardstick by which to measure. One can hope that employees who are classified as full-time employees instead of independent contractors under the updated test never have to make use of their insurance coverage due to an on-site accident.
Related Resources
- Appealing a Court Decision or Judgment (FindLaw’s Filing a Lawsuit)
- Independent Contractors: Overview (FindLaw’s Hiring Process Laws and Rights)
- What Is Construction Law? (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
