Search form

Ninth Circuit to Ask California Supreme Court to Decide Retroactivity of ‘ABC’ Test, Withdraws Opinion

By Jonathan A. Siegel
  • July 24, 2019

Whether California’s recently adopted “ABC” test, used in the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis in cases involving California’s wage orders, must be applied retroactively should be decided by the California Supreme Court, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided, withdrawing its controversial May 2, 2019, opinion. Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21687 (9th Cir. July 22, 2019). The Ninth Circuit said it will certify that question to the California Supreme Court.

The now-withdrawn opinion stemmed from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). The Supreme Court broadened the definition of “employee” in the state’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis by adopting the commonly known ABC test.

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

A: The work must be free from the control and direction of the employer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for performance of the work and in fact;

B: The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the employer’s business; and

C: The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

The standard set in Dynamex presumes that workers are employees subject to the requirements of the IWC wage orders and clearly places the burden on the employer to prove all three elements of the ABC test to establish independent contractor status. What the California Supreme Court did not decide in Dynamex, and what it will be asked to determine, is whether the ABC test should apply retroactively to matters that were still viable at the time of the decision. Given its past rulings on the retroactivity issue, it certainly is possible that the Supreme Court might concur with the Ninth Circuit’s initial conclusion that the ABC test applies retroactively.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about the Dynamex decision, the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis, or any other wage and hour issue, please consult a Jackson Lewis attorney.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 6, 2019

Labor Department Proposes Changes to Clarify Use of FLSA’s ‘Fluctuating Workweek’ Pay Method

November 6, 2019

Persistent confusion over the Department of Labor’s (DOL) “fluctuating workweek” (FWW) pay method to satisfy employers’ obligation to pay overtime has deterred many from using it. Now, the DOL has proposed changes to clarify the pay method. Under DOL regulations on the FWW pay method, if certain conditions are met, an employer may pay... Read More

October 25, 2019

Election Day is Coming – What are Your Obligations as an Employer?

October 25, 2019

With Election Day fast approaching, employers should ensure they are in compliance with state law requirements related to employee voting rights. While not all states impose requirements on employers, some impose time off obligations and notice requirements with the possibility of criminal or civil penalties for non-compliance.... Read More

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More