Proposition 22 continues its journey through the California courts. As background, in 2018 the California Supreme Court adopted a new test to determine whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor in its Dynamex holding. Under the test, a worker is determined to be an employee unless: (a) the worker is free from the
Employers seeking to challenge California’s stringent independent contractor misclassification laws may have found an opening. On March 17, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs could proceed in their lawsuit on claims that California’s Assembly Bill 5, as amended (A.B. 5), violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Olson v. California, No. 21-55757
California employers have been grappling with the difficult and fact-intensive issue of classifying their workers as employees or independent contractors ever since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which was ultimately codified into law by California’s AB-5 and revised by AB-2257. The Ninth
By now, most California employers have heard of AB 5, which, along with the California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), has significantly affected the way many companies do business in California. While AB 5 was disruptive, it was also short-lived.
Read the full GT
With remote work for adults and online distance learning for students here to stay, it is natural for parents with already demanding workloads to seek the help of others to keep their children busy and focused on learning during an already difficult situation. Many parents are searching for options, including engaging the services of
On Jan. 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court granted, and then deferred further action on, the appeal of a lower appellate court’s opinion in Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc. pending its disposition of Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., which takes up the common issue of whether the Dynamex decision applies retroactively.
Last year, the governor of California signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) into law, which codified and clarified the California Supreme Court case Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. The ABC test established in Dynamex dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors. Under the ABC test, a hiring entity must prove that a worker is in fact an independent contractor by demonstrating: (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. San Gabriel Transit, Inc. is one of several AB 5-related cases before state and federal courts in California that have workers, employers, and trade associations hotter than 1.21 gigawatts. While lawsuits filed by “gig economy” drivers, truck drivers (CTA preliminary injunction granted in USDC- Southern District) and freelance journalists (American Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc. and National Press Photographers Association lawsuit filed in USDC- Central District) present an existential threat to AB 5 in the long run, the California Supreme Court will likely decide the retroactivity issue in Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l and San Gabriel Transit, Inc. this year. The impact of the rulings in both cases will extend up and down the Golden State, and employers, especially franchisors (See GT Alert, AB 5 Update, Sept. 24, 2019), and their counsel should be prepared.
Continue Reading AB 5 Update: The California Supreme Court Will Likely Decide if Dynamex Is Retro in 2020