CA Supreme Court Turns Independent Contractor Analysis on its Head

Updated: Jan 23



[Posted May 1, 2018]

Determining whether a California worker is an independent contractor or an employee has always been difficult. Judges deciding the issue have complained that the test used by California courts “provides nothing remotely close to a clear answer.” Then there was the nail salon that was told by one state agency that its workers were employees and by another that they were independent contractors. So there’s no question that the law in this area has been messy.

On Monday, it got considerably messier. That’s when the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. For years — even decades — judges, government agencies, and lawyers have interpreted the law to say that the key to distinguishing between employees and independent contractors was whether the company had the right to control the manner and means by which the worker accomplished the desired result. So if drivers for a gig-economy car service decided what days to work, when to start work on a particular day, where to work, what to wear, when to take breaks and for how long, and when to quit for the day, there was an excellent chance that they’d be considered independent contractors.

Under the California Wage Orders, which guarantee employees a minimum wage, maximum hours, overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and more, that is no longer the case. Now, according to the California Supreme Court, companies must meet a three-prong test to establish independent contractor status (“the ABC test”).

  • A) The company must not be able to control or direct what the worker does, either by contract or in actual practice. This is similar to the test used in the past.

  • B) The worker must perform tasks outside of the hiring entity’s usual course of business. So if you’re a driver for a ride service, a delivery person for a delivery service, or a seamstress for a clothing company, you can’t be an independent contractor no matter how little control the company has over you.

  • C) The worker must be engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. It’s not enough that the company doesn’t prohibit the worker from having his own business or working for others. Instead, the court will look at factors such as whether the business is incorporated or licensed, whether it’s advertised, and whether it offers services to the public or other potential customers.

It is the employers burden to satisfy all three prongs to establish that the worker is an independent contractor. If it fails to establish one, the worker is entitled to be treated as an employee under the Wage Orders. (The Wage Orders themselves are not particularly helpful in this regard. For example, they circularly define “employee” as ” any person employed by an employer.”)


The Court spent 80+ pages explaining its rationale. Nowhere in that lengthy analysis was any recognition of the upheaval this opinion will cause. Millions of workers in the state that were considered independent contractors will now be deemed employees. This will require employers who have done everything they could to follow the law as it was then understood to reevaluate the nature of the relationship with many of their workers and either modify the relationship or provide them the pay and treatment required by the Wage Orders. They also face litigation, including potential class actions, from workers complaining that they were misclassified. And since this case only addresses the wage order definition, they need to apply different standards (which can lead to different conclusions) in deciding how to characterize workers for purposes such as workers compensation and payroll taxes. As I said, a messy situation just got messier.

Determining whether a California worker is an independent contractor or an employee has always been difficult. Judges deciding the issue have complained that the test used by California courts “provides nothing remotely close to a clear answer.” Then there was the nail salon that was told by one state agency that its workers were employees and by another that they were independent contractors. So there’s no question that the law in this area has been messy.

About Jeffrey D. Polsky

Jeff serves as co-chair of Fox Rothschild's Labor and Employment Department. He focuses his practice on business and employment litigation and counseling. He represents clients in disputes relating to:

  • claims of discrimination and harassment

  • trade secret violations

  • wage and hour compliance

  • wrongful discharge

  • breach of contract

Recognizing the risk and expense inherent in litigation, Jeff has extensive experience in alternative methods of resolving disputes, including mediation. In addition to his litigation practice, Jeff advises and counsels employers on a wide range of employment law issues, including:

  • reorganizations

  • terminations

  • corrective actions

  • developing policies

  • investigating misconduct

  • accommodating disabilities

Jeff also handles commercial litigation matters including claims involving breach of fiduciary duty, restrictive covenants, director and officers liability, statutory violations, and other business disputes.


Legal  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
 
© 2019 - 2021 All Rights Reserved. SignalHarmony LLC Business Consultants | Palmdale Business License #47353
Private Business Consultants | Website Development | SEO & Social Media Marketing | Business Improvement Consultants
sales@signalharmony.com | 888.578.4845 Local 661.262.7249
Signalharmony App Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn - Grey Circle