Skip to main content

California's ABC Test For Independent Contractor v. Employee Disputes Found to Apply Retroactively


Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  A putative class action was filed several years ago against Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. ("Jan-Pro"), a janitorial cleaning business.  The suit alleged that Jan-Pro had developed a "three tier" franchising model to avoid paying its janitors minimum wage and overtime by allegedly misclassifying the workers as independent contractors rather than employees.  The claim was severed with the Northern District of California hearing a portion of the claim against Jan-Pro.


Holding:  The Ninth Circuit recognized that the California Supreme Court has recognized that it "is basic in our legal tradition" that "judicial decisions are given retroactive effect."  When a federal appellate court in California applies intervening state supreme court rulings retroactively, this retroactive application applies even if the judgment was entered prior to the ruling from the California Supreme Court.  Granted, there are exceptions, such as "when a judicial decision changes a settled rule on which the parties below have relied."  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found "[p]articular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the challenge as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule."  In this case, Jan-Pro argued the case should be remanded to allow the district court to determine how much Jan-Pro relied on pre-Dynamex law before deciding whether to retroactively apply Dynamex.  On the other side of the coin, it was argued a remand was not necessary as California courts have already held that Dynamex applies retroactively...thus the Ninth Circuit was obliged to follow those courts' findings.

The Ninth Circuit was not convinced it should remand the case to district court for these reasons.  As the Court wrote, "it would make little sense for a court to assess the retroactive effect of Dynamex by developing a factual record concerning a party's reliance on previous law."  Of note, the Court pointed out that the California Supreme Court had previously denied a petition (without comment) by an amicus to modify the Dynamex decision for "Clarification That Independent Contractor Test is Prospective Only."  The California Supreme Court's denying of that petition was held to strongly suggest that the usual retroactive application should apply to the newly announced ABC test.  As well, the Court noted that lower courts in California had already begun applying the ABC test retroactively.

Upon reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit noted it would only avoid retroactively applying Dynamex if it could be shown there was a due process violation in doing so.  As the ABC test was created by the judiciary, rather than the legislature, the Court recognized "even more deference is owed to judicial common-law developments, which by their nature must operate retroactively..."  In this instance, retroactively applying Dynamex was not found to be arbitrary nor irrational.  Applying Dynamex retroactively was held to protect workers in the janitorial industry as a whole by ensuring compensation for them and their families. 

Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to remand the case to the district court on the grounds that the California Supreme Court's newly created ABC test could be lawfully applied retroactively to an independent contractor v. employee dispute, without any due process violation existing as to the retroactive application.

The Takeaway:  That sound you hear is the collective air being taken out of the room for employers in California.  Last year's Dynamex case was groundbreaking in so much that it established a clear cut standard for determining how to resolve independent contractor v. employee disputes, with a decidedly favorable tilt for finding workers to be employees. With the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing its ruling here and affirming that the retroactive application of the ABC test is lawful, I think we are likely to see a string of California cases in the coming months with favorable rulings for workers.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Block

Date:  May 2, 2019

Opinion:  https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/GERARDOVAZQUEZGLORIAROMANandJUANAGUILARonbehalfofthemselvesandall?1557170267

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