Framing Specialists’ supervisors inspected and approved the work once completed, and provided workers with details for subsequent jobs. The PFR workers/independent contractors did not receive any training from PFR, made their own hours and could choose to work (or not) and brought their own tools to perform the work. They worked from a blueprint provided by Framing Specialists without supervision, and coordinated with Framing Specialists, not PFR, as to any issues with the work or to make a change to the scope of work.

Between January and October 2023, OSHA conducted four separate inspections of Pettengill Family Restoration (PFR) jobsites in Missouri. During these inspections, OSHA compliance officers observed familiar hazards: workers on roofs without fall protection, carpenters using nail guns without eye protection, and framers walking below elevated workers without hard hats.

Citations were issued under OSHA’s fall-protection, ladder, scaffolding, and head- and eye-protection standards with many labeled “repeat-serious” because of prior citations issued to a related company, Pettengill Construction, LLC that had the same principal owner, Jennifer Pettengill. The proposed penalties across all four inspections totaled nearly $80,000.

Yet the case did not hinge on whether the hazards existed as photographs and testimony showed that they did but rather on the issue of who employed the people exposed to them. Were they employees of PFR, or independent contractors performing work under separate agreements?

At trial, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) examined whether PFR exercised sufficient control over the workers to be deemed their employer under the OSHA Act. That determination follows the Supreme Court’s decision, Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden that set forth factors that courts consider including who controlled the work, provided tools, set hours, assigned projects, paid wages, and bore tax and insurance obligations.

The evidence painted a familiar picture of an informal field relationships common on residential construction projects. PFR’s owner, Jennifer Pettengill, operated primarily as a bookkeeper. She never visited jobsites, set schedules, nor supervised the framers. The crews used their own tools, trucks, and equipment, and often worked for other contractors. They decided when to show up, how long to stay, and how to sequence the work. Payment was made weekly by check after each worker texted in his hours and requested the amount due.

Here, under these circumstances, the ALJ found that the Secretary (of Labor) failed to meet their evidentiary burden that an employer-employee relationship existed but rather the evidence on balanced weighed in favor of the existence of an independent contractor relationship. PFR would accept jobs such as Framing Specialists, and basically act as an intermediary, paying independent framers to complete the jobs, and keep the difference as profit. Given that PFR lacked control over “the manner and means” of the work, it was not the employer under the Act. Without an employment relationship, OSHA could not sustain the citations.

While PFR prevailed legally, the decision underscores the fine line separating business models that delegate field work from those that directly employ it. In construction, control equals responsibility. Companies that direct, supervise, or coordinate field activities, even loosely, can be held responsible for OSHA compliance, regardless of how workers are classified for tax or payroll purposes.

This distinction is especially important for small-contractor settings where family-run operations, informal crews, and “1099 workers” are common. When multiple individuals work under one trade name, use shared trailers or tools, or take direction from a central figure, OSHA may view the company as the employer, even if everyone calls themselves independent and the determination really comes down the details in any given situation.

From a safety standpoint, this decision should not be read as an excuse for companies not to undertake proper safety precautions and training for their employees. However, this decision reflects a growing challenge in today’s construction economy: maintaining OSHA compliance in an era of decentralized labor. Gig-style arrangements where workers such as framers, roofers and laborers move fluidly between small entities, can blur the lines of accountability. OSHA continues to scrutinize these arrangements, particularly when repeat violations suggest a pattern of evasion through corporate restructuring.

The lesson for contractors is clear: independence must be genuine, not merely labeled. True independent contractors bring their own tools, assume risk and control their methods. However, once a company provides supervision, dictates work practices, or integrates workers into its daily operations, OSHA will likely be able to prove that those individuals are employees for enforcement purposes.

About the author: Costas Cyprus, Esq., practices construction law and commercial litigation with Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, in White Plains, NY. He can be reached at 914-428-2100 and at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.

Published: November 17, 2025.