Skip to main content

California Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Which Upends Independent Contractor v. Employee Test


Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Charles Lee, et al., and in doing so, established a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.  

The case revolved around a claim by two delivery drivers that claimed Dynamex (a nationwide package and document delivery company) misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  Apparently, prior to 2004, Dynamex classified its drivers as employees (who performed similar pickup and delivery work as its current drivers performed).  That changed in 2004 when Dynamex adopted a new policy and considered all drivers to be independent contractors rather than employees.

In the lower courts, the workers prevailed.  However, Dynamex appealed.  In the California Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, the Court made a landmark ruling that could turn the tide in how successful workers are going forward when presenting similar claims.  In the Court's ruling, an "ABC test" was established to determine whether a worker was an independent contractor or an employee.  The ABC test stipulates that a worker must be considered an employee unless:  a) the worker is "free from control and direction over performance of the work"; b) the work is "outside the usual course of business for which the work is performed"; and c) the worker is "customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business."

Based upon this new standard created by the California Supreme Court (and currently used in other states such as Illinois and New Jersey), labor advocates and pro-employee groups have hailed the Court's decision as an opportunity for workers that claim they are misclassified as independent contractors a better likelihood of prevailing upon their claims.  

The question now turns to how companies like Uber, Lyft, GrubHub, and other gig economy related employers will handle this new ABC test.  For employers that have built their business model around the use of independent contractors, this ruling and new standard could threaten that business model going forward.  Of course employers could choose to classify their workers as employees and avoid a protracted legal dispute over independent contractor versus employee classification...however, I suspect many employers will be resistant to that idea and instead be faced with trying to combat the ABC test or simply closing up shop. 


For a copy of the Court's opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S222732.PDF

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...