Excludes from the definition of employee such services rendered by a harness race driver, only a groom or caretaker of a temporary designated trainer of a harness race horse, a shipper or transporter of a harness race horse, a farrier of a harness race horse, or a veterinarian to a harness race horse.

---

S4355-2011 Actions

• Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO LABOR
• Mar 31, 2011: REFERRED TO LABOR

S4355-2011 Memo

BILL NUMBER:S4355

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the workers' compensation law, in relation to the definition of
employee

INTRODUCTION:
The accompanying legislative proposal is submitted on
behalf of the Standardbred Owners Association, Inc.
and recommends the addition of five express statutory exemptions under
Workers' Compensation Law �2(4) for certain workers in the harness
racing industry. In each case, the proposed exemption is firmly
consistent with time-honored legal principles used to determine a
worker's employment status.

The legislative proposal focuses on (1) the employment status of
harness race drivers; (2) the legal relationship between grooms
and/or caretakers and designated and/or "temporary" substituted
trainers (hereafter "Designated Trainers"); and (3) the independent
contractor status of shippers, farriers and veterinarians that
provide services to harness race horses. It is a response to concerns
throughout the industry about the escalating costs of Workers'
Compensation insurance, the lack of uniformity in the audit practice,
and recent decisions by the Workers' Compensation Law Judges that are
contrary both to custom and practice in the industry and the law. The
proposal seeks to bring uniformity and certainty to these particular
employment relationships based on time-honored law.

THE RELEVANT LAW:
The legal determination of whether an
employer/employee relationship exists focuses on the issue of
control. In general, under New York law an employee is a person who
contracts to work for an employer and is under the employer's control
with respect to "the results produced ... or the means used to
achieve the results." See, e.g., In re Cornelia St., Inc., 56 N.Y.2d
895,897,453 N.Y.S.2d 402,403 (1982). The principal consideration is
the employer's control over the individual's work. In the case of the
employee, that control is present. In the case of the independent
contractor, it is absent. See, e.g., O'Brian v. Spitzer, 7 N.Y.3d
239, 242, 818 N.Y.S.2d 844 (2006) ("Broadly speaking an 'employee' is
someone who works for another subject to substantial control, not
only over the results produced but also over the means used to
produce the results. A person who works for another subject to less
extensive control is an 'independent contractor.")

While there is no litmus test to establish a presence or absence of
control, many well-recognized and fairly typical factors are
considered in determining this legal issue, including the following
that are most relevant to the accompanying legislative proposal:

(1) The extent to which an employer controls a worker's activities by
such means as requiring full-time services, stipulating the hours of
work, requiring attendance at meetings and/or training programs, or
requiring prior permission for absence from work. See, e.g., In re
Claim of Bourk, 165 A.D.2d 969,561 N.Y.S.2d 858 (3d Dep't 1990)


(worker who was required to report daily to company's office, attend
training programs and received commissions determined by company only
after company approved the underlying sale, deemed an employee).

(2) The employer's control over the time, place and method of the
worker's performance. See, e.g., In re Bakal, 192 A.D.2d 817, 596
N.Y.S.2d 543 (3d Dep't 1993) (telephone interviewer deemed employee
where employer dictated hours during which interviews could be
conducted, provided instructions on how to conduct interview,
established deadlines for completion of work and unilaterally
determined geographic area where general interviews would be
conducted).

(3) Whether the employer furnishes necessary, equipment, tools or
supplies used by the worker in the performance of his/her work. See,
e.g., In re Claim of Murelio, 108 A.D.2d 974, 484 N.Y.S.2d 959 (3d
Dep't 1985) (worker deemed an employee where employer provided
individual premises, materials and specific instructions).

(4) Whether the worker receives a salary from the employer and whether
the employer withholds taxes or merely pays commissions, without any
withholding. See, e.g., In re Ted's Back Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 725, 485
N.Y.S.2d 742 (1984).

(5) Whether the employer reimburses the worker's expenses. See, e.g.,
In re Home, 188 A.D.2d 922,591 N.Y.S.2d 880 (3d Dep't 1992) (worker
reimbursed for cab fare, dry cleaning and promotional items deemed an
employee).

(6) Whether the employer sets the worker's wage rate. See, e.g., In re
Claim of Chopik; 145 A.D.2d 747,535 N.Y.S.2d 268 (3d Dep't 1988)
(employer-employee relationship existed between Modeling Agency and
model where agency and its client set hourly rate for model's
services, agency was responsible for all billing and collection of
fees, and model was paid after first deducting agency commission); and

(7) Whether the employer restricts the worker's performance of
services for others. Compare In re Duffy, 172 A.D.2d 914,568 N.Y.S.2d
201 (3d Dep't 1991) (worker who was permitted to work for other
carriers subject to company's authorization deemed an employee) with
In re Kearsh, 186 A.D.2d 970,589 N.Y.S.2d 114 (3d Dep't 1992) (cable
installers who were free to provide similar services to others deemed
independent contractors).

THE PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS:
The proposal also follows the format of the
"employee" exclusions set forth in �2(4) of the Workers' Compensation
Law. Like those statutory exclusions, each of the proposed exemptions
require that the worker's exempt status be supported by proof
establishing the absence of control in the underlying relationship
between the worker and the employer. Notably, as demonstrated below,
each of the proposed exemptions require evidentiary showings
satisfying the standard factors that provide a legal basis that the
relevant relationship falls outside of the legal employer-employee
relationship.

(i) The Harness Race Driver Exemption


Section 1 of the proposed legislation excludes from the term
"employee" the services of a harness race driver upon proof that
effectively establishes his/her independent contractor status. There
is some controversy in the industry concerning the employment status
of the harness race driver. The proposed legislation makes clear that
upon proof demonstrating the absence of control of owners and/or
trainers over the harness race driver's performance, his/her
employment status is not that of an employee. The proposal looks to
factors evidencing the extensive independence the harness race driver
has over the means and manner of his/her performance. For example,
while the harness race driver is selected by the owner and trainer of
a horse to participate in a certain race, he/she is free to decline
to participate or to select a different horse to drive. The harness
race driver chooses where and when he/she will appear for work and is
free to terminate his/her services at any time, including immediately
before the race he/she is to drive in. The driver furnishes his/her
own equipment goggles, colors, helmet, whip, racebike/sulky and is
responsible for his/her own expenses.

Furthermore, his/her compensation relates solely to the performance of
the horse he/she drives and is not controlled or varied by the owner
or trainer. More specifically, pursuant to the New York State Racing
and Wagering Board Rules NYCRR 9 Exec E 41, harness race drivers are
entitled to a fixed rate of five percent (5%) of the total purse
earned by any horse successfully driven by him/her. This sum of money
is deducted from the purse otherwise payable to the horse's owner and
directly and automatically paid to the driver by the relevant
racetrack pursuant to regulation. Accordingly, as a practical matter,
the harness race driver is treated as an independent contractor and a
1099 worker in all respects.

The proposed legislation addresses each of the considerations set
forth above. While it provides that a harness race driver shall be
excluded from "employee" status, like the other exemptions under
Workers' Compensation Law �2(4), this proposed exemption is afforded
only upon the required submission of proof that the harness race
driver is an independent contractor, it requires proof that the
harness race driver's (i) compensation is determined by his/her
success in performance as opposed to the hours worked and that he/she
is not treated as an employee for federal or state tax purposes (see
Proposed Legislation, Section 1(a) & (h)); (ii) he/she is free to
accept or decline requests to drive horses and to unilaterally
terminate his/her services at anytime (id. at Section l(c), (d) &
(g)), and (iii) that he/she is personally responsible for furnishing
his/her own equipment and paying his/her own expenses (Id. at Section
l(c)). In short, this proposed legislation provides certainty as to
the harness race driver's employment status upon proof establishing
his/her independent contractor status under traditional legal analysis.

(ii) Groom/Caretaker and Designated Trainer Exemption

Section 2 of the Proposed Legislation confirms that the relationship
between the grooms and/or caretakers of harness race horses and
Designated Trainers typically will not constitute an
employer/employee relationship.
Again, to qualify for the exemption, proof must be submitted
demonstrating that the Designated Trainer asserts no meaningful


control over the services being provided by the groom and/or
caretaker. By way of background, the Designated Trainer of a harness
race horse usually assumes that role on an ad hoc, temporary basis
necessitated by the absence of the harness race horse's regular
trainer. The Designated Trainer, in practice, has no financial or
meaningful employment relationship with the grooms and/or caretakers
of that harness race horse and is nothing more than a "stand-in" for
the harness race horse's trainer. The Designated Trainer's
interaction with the groom and/or caretaker is de minimus and he/she
provides no compensation to the groom and/or caretaker.

Recognizing the practical realities surrounding the nature of the
relationship between the groom and/or caretaker of a harness race
horse and the Designated Trainer or "temporary" substitute trainer of
that horse, the second proposed exemption provides that upon the
submission of proof establishing the lack of control of a groom
and/or caretaker by the Designated Trainer, no employer/employee
relationship shall be deemed to exist between them. This proposed
exclusion again follows the exemption format set forth in Subdivision
4 of Section 2 of the Workers' Compensation Law and is again
predicated on the well-recognized factors used to determine
employment status that are outlined above. Under this recommended
provision, the employer/employee exclusion would be applied where the
proof establishes that (i) the Designated Trainer exerts no control
over the performance of services by the groom and/or caretaker (see
Proposed Legislation, Section 2(b)); (ii) the groom and/or caretaker
is free to provide his or her services to trainers other than the
Designated Trainer (Id. at Section 2(c)); (iii) the Designated
Trainer provides no equipment or supplies to the groom and/or
caretaker and does not reimburse the groom and/or caretaker for h
is or her expenses (id. At Section 2(d) & (e)); and (iv) the
compensation of the groom and/or caretaker is not paid by the
Designated Trainer and he/she is not treated as an employee for tax
purposes by the Designated Trainer (Id. at Section 2(a) & (f)).

(iii) The Shipper, Farrier and Veterinarian Exemptions

Sections 3 through 5 of the Proposed Legislation address the
independent contractor status of the shipper or transporter of a
harness race horse (Section 3), the farrier who renders services to a
harness race horse (Section 4), and the veterinarian retained to
treat a harness race horse (Section 5). Once again this legislation
follows the format of the "employee" exclusion set forth in �2(4) of
the Workers' Compensation Law and requires that the entity's exempt
status be supported by proof establishing that the entity providing
services is not subject to the control of its customers. The
non-employee status of each of these entities is demonstrated by
proof that each entity itself controls the means and manner of the
services it renders. Each exemption requires evidence that the
relevant entity is compensated for its services pursuant to a
negotiated fee or by a fee set by the entity and that such fee is not
related to actual hours worked (see, e.g., Sections 3(a), 4(a) and
Sea)). The other various areas of proof outlined by each of these
proposed exemptions are based on the well-recognized legal factors,
discussed in Section B above, that are considered with respect to the
issue of control in determining whether an employer/employee
relation- ship exists. These include (1) that each entity is free


to provide its services to customers of its choice (Sections 3(b),
4(b) and S(b)); (ii) that each entity may unilaterally determine when
and where it will perform such services (Sections 3(c), 4(c) and
5(c); (iii) that each entity is responsible for its own expenses and
furnishing its own equipment (Sections 3(d) and (e), 4(d) and (e),
5(d) and (e)); (iv) that each entity is free to terminate its
services at any time (Sections 3(f), 4(f) and 5(f)); and (v) that the
party that retains each entity does not treat it as an employee for
federal or state tax purposes (Sections 3(g), 4(g) and 5(g)). In
short, these proposed exemptions focus on the essential aspects of
each entity that confirm the true independence exercised by that
entity in performing its services.

JUSTIFICATION:
In sum, the accompanying proposal seeks to provide critical guidance
and clarity in an area of increasing uncertainty. Most importantly,
this legislative proposal not only is in full conformance with
well-established legal precepts that have historically defined the
scope of employer/employee relationships, but it also will protect
owners and trainers from being unduly exposed to unwarranted exposure
to liability under the Workers' Compensation Laws. By requiring that
each exemption be supported by proof negating the employer-employee
relationship, the proposed legislation is designed to ensure that
liability under the Workers' Compensation Law is allocated in a
consistent and responsible manner.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
A.10309 of 2010: Referred to Assembly Labor Committee

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

S4355-2011 Text

                      S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
  ________________________________________________________________________

                                    4355

                         2011-2012 Regular Sessions

                              I N  SENATE

                               March 31, 2011
                                 ___________

  Introduced  by  Sen. BONACIC -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
    printed to be committed to the Committee on Labor

  AN ACT to amend the workers' compensation law, in relation to the  defi-
    nition of employee

    THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
  BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


    Section 1. Subdivision 4 of section 2 of the workers' compensation law
  is amended by  adding  five  new  undesignated  paragraphs  to  read  as
  follows:

    NOTWITHSTANDING  ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, "EMPLOYEE" SHALL
  NOT INCLUDE THE SERVICES OF A HARNESS RACE DRIVER IF IT BE  PROVEN  THAT
  (A)  SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE COMPENSATION (WHETHER OR NOT PAID IN CASH)
  FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY SUCH HARNESS RACE DRIVER IS RELATED TO HIS
  OR HER PERFORMANCE IN THE HARNESS RACE RATHER THAN THE NUMBER  OF  HOURS
  WORKED;  (B) THE HARNESS RACE DRIVER IS FREE TO ACCEPT OR TO DECLINE ANY
  REQUEST TO DRIVE HORSES; (C) THE HARNESS RACE DRIVER IS  FREE  TO  DRIVE
  HORSES  FOR  OWNERS  AND/OR  TRAINERS  OF  HIS OR HER CHOOSING AND/OR TO
  ENGAGE IN OTHER EMPLOYMENT; (D) THE HARNESS RACE DRIVER MAY UNILATERALLY
  DETERMINE WHEN AND WHERE HE OR SHE WILL WORK; (E) THE HARNESS RACE DRIV-
  ER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER OWN  EXPENSES;  (F)  THE  HARNESS  RACE
  DRIVER  IS  RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING HIS OR HER OWN VEST, HELMET, WHIP
  AND SULKY; (G) THE HARNESS RACE DRIVER IS FREE TO TERMINATE HIS  OR  HER
  SERVICES  AT  ANY  TIME;  AND  (H) THE PERSON OR ENTITY THAT RETAINS THE
  HARNESS RACE DRIVER TO PROVIDE SERVICES IS NOT TREATED BY SUCH PERSON OR
  ENTITY AS AN EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SERVICES FOR FEDERAL OR STATE
  TAX PURPOSES.
    NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER,  A  GROOM  AND/OR
  CARETAKER OF A HARNESS RACE HORSE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AN "EMPLOYEE" OF A
  DESIGNATED  TRAINER  AND/OR SUBSTITUTE TRAINER OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE
  IF IT BE PROVEN THAT (A) THE COMPENSATION (WHETHER OR NOT PAID IN  CASH)
  FOR  THE  SERVICES  PERFORMED BY SUCH GROOM AND/OR CARETAKER RELATING TO

   EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                        [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                             LBD05804-01-1

 S. 4355                             2

  THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS NOT PAID  BY  THE  DESIGNATED  TRAINER  AND/OR
  SUBSTITUTE TRAINER OF SUCH HARNESS RACE HORSE; (B) THE DESIGNATED TRAIN-
  ER  AND/OR SUBSTITUTE TRAINER OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE DOES NOT CONTROL
  THE  WORKING  HOURS  OF THE GROOM AND/OR CARETAKER; (C) THE GROOM AND/OR
  CARETAKER PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE DESIGNATED TRAINER AND/OR SUBSTITUTE
  TRAINER OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS FREE TO PROVIDE HIS OR HER SERVICES
  TO OTHER TRAINERS (INCLUDING OTHER DESIGNATED TRAINERS AND/OR SUBSTITUTE
  TRAINERS) OF HARNESS RACE HORSES;  (D)  THE  DESIGNATED  TRAINER  AND/OR
  SUBSTITUTE  TRAINER  OF  THE HARNESS RACE HORSE PROVIDES NO EQUIPMENT OR
  SUPPLIES TO THE GROOM AND/OR CARETAKER PROVIDING SERVICES TO SUCH DESIG-
  NATED TRAINER AND/OR SUBSTITUTE  TRAINER;  (E)  THE  DESIGNATED  TRAINER
  AND/OR  SUBSTITUTE  TRAINER OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
  AND DOES NOT REIMBURSE  THE  GROOM  AND/OR  CARETAKER  FOR  HIS  OR  HER
  EXPENSES;  AND  (F) THE GROOM AND/OR CARETAKER PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE
  DESIGNATED TRAINER AND/OR SUBSTITUTE TRAINER OF THE HARNESS  RACE  HORSE
  IS  NOT TREATED AS AN EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SERVICES FOR FEDERAL
  OR STATE TAX PURPOSES BY THE DESIGNATED TRAINER AND/OR SUBSTITUTE TRAIN-
  ER.
    NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, "EMPLOYEE"  SHALL
  NOT  INCLUDE  THE SERVICES OF A SHIPPER OR TRANSPORTER OF A HARNESS RACE
  HORSE IF IT BE PROVEN THAT (A) SUBSTANTIALLY  ALL  OF  THE  COMPENSATION
  (WHETHER  OR NOT PAID IN CASH) FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE SHIPPER
  OR TRANSPORTER OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO  MILEAGE
  OR  SOME  OTHER  TYPE  OF AGREED UPON RATE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO ACTUAL
  HOURS WORKED; (B) THE SHIPPER OR TRANSPORTER OF THE HARNESS  RACE  HORSE
  IS  FREE  TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS OF HIS OR HER CHOOSING AND/OR
  TO ENTER INTO OTHER EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS; (C) THE SHIPPER OR  TRANS-
  PORTER  OF  THE  HARNESS  RACE HORSE MAY UNILATERALLY DETERMINE WHEN AND
  WHERE HE OR SHE WILL WORK; (D) THE SHIPPER OR TRANSPORTER OF THE HARNESS
  RACE HORSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER OWN EXPENSES; (E)  THE  SHIPPER
  OR  TRANSPORTER  OF THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING
  HIS OR HER OWN EQUIPMENT AND/OR VEHICLE; (F) THE SHIPPER OR  TRANSPORTER
  OF  THE  HARNESS  RACE HORSE IS FREE TO TERMINATE HIS OR HER SERVICES AT
  ANY TIME; AND (G) THE PARTY THAT RETAINS  THE  SERVICES  OF  SHIPPER  OR
  TRANSPORTER  OF  THE  HARNESS  RACE HORSE DOES NOT TREAT SUCH SHIPPER OR
  TRANSPORTER AS AN EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SERVICE FOR FEDERAL  AND
  STATE TAX PURPOSES.
    NOTWITHSTANDING  ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, "EMPLOYEE" SHALL
  NOT INCLUDE THE SERVICES OF A FARRIER WHOSE SERVICES ARE RENDERED  TO  A
  HARNESS  RACE  HORSE,  IF IT IS PROVEN THAT (A) SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
  COMPENSATION (WHETHER OR NOT PAID IN CASH) FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED  BY
  THE  FARRIER TO THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS RELATED TO A NEGOTIATED FEE OR
  ONE SET BY THE FARRIER AND IS NOT RELATED TO ACTUAL  HOURS  WORKED;  (B)
  THE  FARRIER  RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS
  FREE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS OF HIS OR HER CHOOSING,  INCLUDING
  PROVIDING  FARRIER  SERVICES  TO  ANY OTHER HARNESS RACE HORSE AND/OR TO
  ENTER INTO OTHER EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS; (C) THE FARRIER  RETAINED  TO
  PROVIDE  SERVICES  FOR THE HARNESS RACE HORSE MAY UNILATERALLY DETERMINE
  WHERE AND WHEN HE OR SHE WILL WORK; (D) THE FARRIER RETAINED TO  PROVIDE
  SERVICES  FOR  THE  HARNESS  RACE  HORSE  IS  RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER
  EXPENSES; (E) THE FARRIER RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR  THE  HARNESS
  RACE  HORSE  IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING HIS OR HER OWN EQUIPMENT; (F)
  THE FARRIER RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE HARNESS  RACE  HORSE  IS
  FREE TO TERMINATE OR DECLINE TO PROVIDE HIS OR HER SERVICES AT ANY TIME;
  AND  (G)  THE  PARTY  THAT  RETAINS THE SERVICES OF THE FARRIER DOES NOT

 S. 4355                             3

  TREAT HIM OR HER AS AN EMPLOYEE FOR FEDERAL AND STATE TAX PURPOSES  WITH
  RESPECT TO HIS OR HER SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE HARNESS RACE HORSE.
    NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, THE TERM "EMPLOY-
  EE" SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE SERVICES OF A VETERINARIAN RETAINED TO TREAT A
  HARNESS  RACE  HORSE  IF  IT BE PROVEN THAT (A) SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
  COMPENSATION (WHETHER OR NOT PAID IN CASH) FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED  BY
  THE  VETERINARIAN  TO THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS RELATED TO A FEE NEGOTI-
  ATED OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF AGREED UPON RATE AND NOT  RELATED  TO  ACTUAL
  HOURS  WORKED;  (B) THE VETERINARIAN RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE
  HARNESS RACE HORSE IS FREE TO PROVIDE HIS OR HER SERVICES  TO  CUSTOMERS
  OF HIS OR HER CHOOSING, INCLUDING PROVIDING VETERINARIAN SERVICES TO ANY
  OTHER HARNESS RACE HORSE AND/OR TO ENTER INTO OTHER EMPLOYMENT RELATION-
  SHIPS; (C) THE VETERINARIAN RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE HARNESS
  RACE  HORSE  MAY  UNILATERALLY  DETERMINE  WHERE AND WHEN HE OR SHE WILL
  WORK; (D) THE VETERINARIAN RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO  THE  HARNESS
  RACE  HORSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER EXPENSES; (E) THE VETERINARIAN
  RETAINED TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE HARNESS RACE  HORSE  IS  RESPONSIBLE
  FOR  FURNISHING HIS OR HER OWN EQUIPMENT; (F) THE VETERINARIAN PROVIDING
  SERVICES TO THE HARNESS RACE HORSE IS FREE TO TERMINATE PROVIDING HIS OR
  HER SERVICES AT ANY TIME; AND (G) THE PARTY THAT RETAINS THE SERVICES OF
  THE VETERINARIAN DOES NOT TREAT HIM OR HER AS AN  EMPLOYEE  FOR  FEDERAL
  AND  STATE  TAX PURPOSES WITH RESPECT TO HIS OR HER SERVICES PROVIDED TO
  THE HARNESS RACE HORSE.
    S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.