Skip to main content

Federal Judge Rejects Challenge to California Supreme Court's ABC Test For Employee v. Independent Contractor Analysis


Readers might recall that last year, the California Supreme Court created the "ABC test" in its Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court opinion.  The Dynamex case was pivotal in so much that it established a new test to determine whether a worker was an independent contractor or an employee.  The ABC test stipulated 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."  As a result of this new standard, many workers would be entitled to minimum wage and reimbursement for expenses.  Needless to say, this labor friendly ruling riled a lot of feathers among California employers.

However, a challenge to the ABC test was made by a trucking organization (that represents truck operators, including those that regularly hired truckers as independent contractors) when a case was filed in the Eastern District of California.  The case, Western States Trucking Association v. Schoorl, addressed whether the ABC test was preempted by either the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAAA") or federal motor carrier safety regulations.

In the opinion from the Eastern District of California Court, the FAAAA preemption argument was rejected on the grounds that the California wage regulations interpreted in Dynamex (and challenged in Western States Trucking Association), had only a tenuous connection to and no significant impact on motor carriers' rates, routes, or services governed by the FAAAA.

Further, the Court held that the ABC test created in Dynamex did not preempt applicable federal motor carrier safety regulations.  The federal motor carrier safety regulations were safety rules that regulated motor carriage industry safety, vehicle inspections, and driver's license standards.  The interpretation of the California wage regulations in Dynamex were found to only have a tangential connection to safety issues.  The decision from Dynamex did not conflict with the federal motor carrier safety regulations because these federal regulations did not speak to when an employee relationship exists or under what terms.

While this is another victory for workers in the state, it does not appear that this particular legal challenge is resolved.  The trucking organization has indicated it is planning to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and "to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary."  While there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would entertain an appeal, it is worth noting that there appears to be a split among circuits on the matter:  A federal court in Boston reached an opposite conclusion on a similar case in 2016.  Earlier this year, a court in Philadelphia upheld a New Jersey ruling that was similar to Dynamex.  The Supreme Court often takes up cases to resolve a dispute among circuits.  This case appears to be a candidate for the Supreme Court to resolve such an issue.  Stay tuned.


For a copy of the Eastern District of California's opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/WesternSchoorl032819.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more