Employment – Misclassification – Independent contractor

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment on his claim that he was misclassified as an independent contractor, that motion should be allowed because the defendants have failed to establish that the plaintiff worked as an independent contractor.

“Plaintiff George Serebrennikov has alleged that he is a former employee of Defendant Proxet Group LLC (‘Proxet’), that his employment was terminated as of July 31, 2022, and that he is owed $22,500 in unpaid salary, a $100,000 bonus, $16,000 for unused vacation days, and over $450,000 for unreimbursed employment-related expenses. … He brings claims against Proxet and its sole member and manager, Defendant Vladimir Medvedovsky, for violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L.c. 149 (‘Wage Act’), and against Proxet for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. …

“Defendants contend that if the Wage Act applies, Serebrennikov cannot demonstrate that Defendants failed to pay him any wages due. … Specifically, Defendants argue that Serebrennikov cannot recover under the Wage Act the unreimbursed work expenses he claims, payment for unused vacation time, or the $100,000 bonus that he asserts was due at the end of August 2022. …

“Based on his summary judgment filings, Serebrennikov is claiming $273,707.66 in unreimbursed expenses. … Defendants contend that this claim fails where Serebrennikov was reimbursed for every expense he submitted to Proxet. …

“As to almost all of the expenses claimed, Serebrennikov has failed to show that Proxet required him to front expenses on Proxet’s behalf without reimbursement. To the contrary, it is undisputed that, prior to Serebrennikov’s last day with Proxet, Proxet timely reimbursed him for every expense that he submitted for reimbursement. Moreover, as to the expenses he now seeks to recover under the Wage Act for the period through July 31, 2022, Serebrennikov has made no showing that these were expenses Proxet required him to front for Proxet’s benefit.

“However, any expenses Serebrennikov fronted to pay the costs of his return to the United States fall into a different category. Where Serebrennikov’s residence was in the United States, a jury could find that Proxet’s failure to reimburse Serebrennikov for expenses he incurred in connection with his return from Poland to Florida amounted to an improper wage reduction under the Wage Act. Defendants may be able to defend against this claim based on a failure by Serebrennikov to timely submit the expenses for reimbursement where there is no evidence in the summary judgment record that he sought reimbursement for these expenses prior to his response to Defendants’ interrogatory on August 9, 2023. But where no evidence in the record establishes a timeliness requirement, the court is unable to determine when Serebrennikov was required to submit these travel expenses for reimbursement on summary judgment. …

“Serebrennikov seeks $16,000 under the Wage Act for unused vacation days. …

“… In light of record evidence suggesting that Plaintiff was entitled to 30 days of vacation per year, and where the record is disputed as to whether Serebrennikov was on vacation for three weeks in June, the compensation for vacation days at the end of May does not preclude a jury finding that he was owed compensation for 15 days when he left Proxet. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Serebrennikov’s claim for unused vacation time. …

“Serebrennikov alleges that he is owed a ‘definitively determined and due’ bonus of $100,000. … Defendants assert that there is no evidence to suggest that Serebrennikov was guaranteed a $100,000 bonus in 2022. …

“Serebrennikov’s bonus is not recoverable under the Wage Act because he did not continue working through August 2022. …

“Where Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Serebrennikov’s claim under the Wage Act based on unreimbursed travel expenses following his termination and unpaid vacation time, the court considers Serebrennikov’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment that Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor under his Agreements with Proxet. …

“Serebrennikov’s Consulting Agreement with Proxet labeled him an independent contractor, but that language does not determine whether Serebrennikov was Proxet’s employee for purposes of the Wage Act. … Nor does the fact that he was paid as an independent contractor resolve the issue. … Instead, under Massachusetts law, ‘an individual performing any service is presumed to be an employee.’ … The purported employer can rebut the presumption of employment by establishing the three indicia of an independent contractor relationship set forth by statute. …

“… Where Defendants have failed to establish all three indicia that Serebrennikov worked for Proxet as an independent contractor, the court finds Serebrennikov was Proxet’s employee. …

“… The court grants Serebrennikov’s Cross-Motion for [Partial] Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 80], finding that the Massachusetts Wage Act applies to his relationship with Defendants and that Serebrennikov was Proxet’s employee. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 73] is granted as to Serebrennikov’s Wage Act claims for wages withheld through unreimbursed business expenses incurred prior to the end of his work for Proxet, and for a $100,000 bonus, and is otherwise denied.”

Serebrennikov v. Proxet Group LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-580-25) (32 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-12051-IT) (Oct. 20, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.