Blogs

On September 24, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum opinion finding that a Wells Fargo financial advisor was a common law employee rather than an independent contractor, upheld the IRS’s disallowance of business expense deductions, and granted the government’s motion for summary judgement. Francisco Gil, a longtime financial advisor at Wells Fargo, argued that his flexibility in setting his schedule, recruiting clients, and working primarily on commission made him an independent contractor entitled to deduct business expenses on Schedule C. Alternatively, he sought classification as a statutory employee.

The IRS maintained that Gil was a common-law employee, pointing to Wells Fargo’s significant control over his work. The firm supervised him through annual reviews, performance goals, and access to his calendar; provided benefits such as health insurance and a 401(k); supplied office space, equipment, and assistants; withheld taxes from his pay; and retained ownership of his client lists. Wells Fargo also consistently treated him as an employee, issuing W-2s rather than 1099s.

Applying the common-law test for worker classification, the court found that the degree of control, provision of benefits, permanency of the relationship, and integration of Gil’s services into Wells Fargo’s core business overwhelmingly supported employee status. Although his commission-based pay and scheduling flexibility weighed in his favor, they did not overcome the broader evidence of employee treatment.

Because Gil was neither an independent contractor nor a statutory employee, he could not claim Schedule C deductions. The court concluded that Gil and his wife were entitled to smaller refunds than they sought—$17,074 for 2020 and $14,413 for 2021—reflecting only their overpayment as employees. The government’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the taxpayers’ motion was denied. For further questions regarding whether you or your employee qualifies as an independent contractor, contact Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III and Kevin Naccari and visit our Tax practice page.

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, thousands of people took to social media to react. Some people posted content celebrating or mocking the political commentator’s death.  Others, outraged by these posts, called on employers to take action against the employees who wrote them.

For employers, this presents a difficult legal question: can an employee be disciplined or terminated for offensive online speech about a political figure?  In Louisiana, the answer is more complicated than you might think.

While the First Amendment does not protect employees from discipline by private employers, Louisiana law provides unique safeguards.  Under La. R.S. §§ 23:961–62, no employer with 20 or more employees shall: 

(1) “make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy forbidding or preventing any of his employees from engaging or participating in politics”; 

(2) “adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy which will control, direct, or tend to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of his employees”; or 

(3) “coerce or influence, or attempt to coerce or influence any of his employees by means of threats of discharge or of loss of employment in case such employees should support or become affiliated with any particular political faction or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character.”  La. Stat. Ann. § 23:961 (emphasis added). 

Violations can carry fines of up to $2,000 and even potential jail time. 

Against this backdrop, posting about the death of a political commentator – even in a manner employers may find distasteful or inconsistent with their values – could very well qualify as “participat[ing] in political activities of any nature or character,” such that terminating an employee for these types of posts may violate Louisiana law. 

The takeaway for Louisiana employers: disciplining an employee for controversial political online speech can carry significant legal risks.  Before taking action, employers should weigh their options carefully, consider any potential reputational impacts, and consult counsel to navigate this sensitive intersection of workplace culture and state law. 

For more information, contact Liskow employment lawyers Ellie George and Tommy McGoey or visit our Labor & Employment practice page.