Search form

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

  • May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 3152 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2018).

Under the new standard, to establish that an individual is in fact an independent contractor, an employer must prove that:

  • It does not control how the individual performs the work;
  • The individual provides a service that is not part of the employer’s usual business; and
  • The individual customarily engages in an established business, trade, or profession that is independent of the employer’s business.

Control-of-Work Test

In expanding the definition of employee, the Supreme Court examined at length, but ultimately deemed as non-exclusive, the nearly 30-year-old analysis established in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 796 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989), which it acknowledged was “the seminal California decision on the subject.”

In Borello, the Supreme Court had adopted, in the context of a workers’ compensation claim, the common law “control-of-work” test. The test asks “whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.”

The Court in Borello further identified several non-exclusive factors that inform the analysis, including:

  • The right of the employer to discharge the individual without cause;
  • Whether the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
  • Whether, in the location at issue, the work is usually done without supervision by the employer;
  • The skill required in the particular occupation;
  • Whether the employer or the individual supplies the necessary equipment, tools, and place of work;
  • The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
  • Whether payment is made by the job or by the time spent;
  • Whether the work is a part of the employer’s regular business; and
  • The apparent intent of the parties as to whether an employer-employee or independent contractor relationship exists.

ABC Test

Noting that the pertinent state wage order (covering matters such as minimum wages, maximum hours, and meal and rest breaks) defines the term “employ” as “to engage, suffer, or permit to work,” the Supreme Court concluded in Dynamex that, in light of the history and remedial purpose of the wage order, the more appropriate analysis for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists is the “ABC Test” adopted by some other state courts.

Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the worker:

(A) Is free from the employer’s control and direction;

(B) Performs a service that is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and

(C) Customarily engages in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

While recognizing the importance of the factors set forth in Borello, the Court concluded that Borello’s highly nuanced, multi-factor test “makes it difficult for both hiring businesses and workers to determine in advance how a particular category of workers will be classified, frequently leaving the ultimate employee or independent contractor determination to a subsequent and often considerably delayed judicial decision.” The result of such circumstances “often leaves both businesses and workers in the dark with respect to basic questions relating to wages and working conditions that arise regularly, on a day-to-day basis.” Moreover, the Court explained, application of a more complex, multi-factor test “affords a hiring business greater opportunity to evade its fundamental responsibilities under a wage and hour law by dividing its work force into disparate categories and varying the working conditions of individual workers within such categories.”

In adopting the simpler ABC test, the Court noted that, by being presumptively classified as employees, workers would have the benefits and protections of the wage order available to them, while companies would be protected against competitors who attempt to save costs by circumventing the wage orders’ obligations.

Next Steps

California employers who have entered into work arrangements with individuals other than those who traditionally have been deemed independent contractors (e.g., electricians, plumbers, and HVAC professionals) should promptly and carefully review the status of those workers, particularly if the employer previously classified such individuals as employees.

The standard announced by the Supreme Court presumes that workers are employees subject to the requirements of the IWC wage orders. The Court makes clear that the employer has the burden of proving all three elements of the ABC test to establish independent contractor status.

Dynamex is certain to significantly affect companies in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, and throughout California that rely on workforce configurations using independent contractors.

If you have any questions about Dynamex, the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis, or any other wage and hour issue, please consult the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 17, 2018

Illinois Joins Growing List of States Addressing Employee Business Expense Reimbursement

October 17, 2018

An amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) imposing an affirmative duty on employers to reimburse employees for certain expenses incurred during their employment will go into effect on January 1, 2019. Previous Law Prior to the amendment, expense reimbursements were not addressed in the IWPCA and its... Read More

October 2, 2018

California Restricts Confidentiality Provisions Concerning Information Related to Sexual Harassment

October 2, 2018

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed three bills into law that restrict employers in the securement of non-disclosure, release, and non-disparagement agreements that attempt to limit parties in discussing sexual harassment-related factual information. Senate Bill 820 (SB 820) Settlement agreements that prevent an individual... Read More

October 1, 2018

Claims of Workplace Harassment in California to Receive Greater Protections under New Law

October 1, 2018

Beginning January 1, 2019, new California law creates several new protections for employees bringing harassment claims. Highlights of Senate Bill 1300 (SB 1300) follows: Employer Responsibility for Nonemployees SB 1300 mandates that an employer may be responsible for the acts of nonemployees with respect to any type of... Read More

Related Practices