Employment Law Office of

WARD HEINRICHS

Experienced Aggressive Attorney

Call for FREE Consultation

858-292-0792

banner

New California Independent Contractor Test

   The California Supreme Court just replaced the old test used to determine when a worker is an independent contractor with a new one.  Many businesses will not like it.  The case that requires the new test is called: Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles.  Now, before a worker can be an independent contractor rather than an employee, the employer must prove all three of the following elements:

  1. That 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 work and in practice.
  2. That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
  3. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the hiring entity.

   Because the test has three elements, it has been dubbed the ABC test.  Almost two-thirds of the other states use that test, or a version of it, so it is not really a new test.  It should have a huge impact in California.

   Now, if a worker is performing work for which the business receives compensation, then the business might think twice about making the worker an independent contractor.  In Dynamex, the California Supreme Court held that delivery drivers who deliver packages for a delivery company must be employees under the new test.  The old test left room to argue that issue.

   Further, the Court implied that a plumber who fixes an over flowing toilet is probably not an employee of a restaurant who is a client of the plumber.  However, if a handyman fixes a toilet, does other part time work for the restaurant, and has few, if any, other clients, then that handyman may not pass element three. Further, if the restaurant exerts control over the time, place, and method of work, then the handyman may not pass element one.

   Uber and Lyft are still litigating the issue of whether or not their drivers are independent contractors in California.  Now, because those services make money from providing drivers to its customers, Uber and Lyft will probably fail to qualify workers as independent contractors under element two.  They may still try to argue that they are only platforms that facilitates ride sharing, but follow the money.

   What other industries may feel the affect of the new California test?

   For years, certain sectors of the trucking industry have tried to classify drivers as independent contractors.  They have not always won their arguments, but now, I suspect, they will win even fewer.  As Dynamex illustrates, if a worker drives a truck for a delivery company, that worker is probably an employee.  If a worker drives a company truck for a business and delivers the goods of that company, that worker will probably be an employee.  In that case, to prove those workers are independent contractors, the company would need to have little control over the delivery, not have delivery as a part of its business, and the driver would need to be in business for him or herself.  Trucking companies should be very wary of leasing the truck to workers and having them perform deliveries for the company.  That common practice may fail under the new test.

  Any company that has independent contractors perform its work, especially functions of its core business, should review the arrangement.  Not reviewing such arrangements could cost them heavily in future lawsuits or Labor Commissioner claims.

  Dynamex leaves some questions open.  We do not know whether the new test applies to California regulatory agencies or to the Labor Code.  Arguably, it only applies to California Wage Orders, but I think that eventually it will be the only test for independent contractor classification in California.

 

S. Ward Heinrichs, Esq.
Employment Law Office of Ward Heinrichs
4565 Ruffner Street, Suite 207
San Diego, CA 92111
858-292-0792
(858) 408-7543 (fax)

PLEASE FOLLOW US HERE

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On LinkedinVisit Us On YoutubeCheck Our Feed

For FREE Consultation!

Brief description of your legal issue:

First Name

Best Email

Phone

REVIEWS

“Mr. Heinrichs is truly the most caring attorney I have ever met. After calling for an initial consult and leaving a message, my call was returned with in 30 minutes. He listened to me with out making me feel like a dollar sign and agreed to take on my case. I never had a problem communicating with him. He explained the process and informed me of every next step. I always knew what to expect and what time frame I was looking at. He worked hard on my case and I was happy with the outcome.” Amy L. Lakeside, CA _____________________
“This is the second time I employed the service of this firm and I got a very positive outcome from my labor issue. Mr. Heinrichs is very understanding and professional and his negotiation skills are very effective in lending a voice to any employee that has to face a well defended and lawyered up corporation. I also recommended him to a friend of mine a couple of years back and he was able to also get a decent severance package for that person.”
M. S. Del Mar, CA _____________________
“Ward Heinrichs was very effective in helping me resolve my labor issues with my company. He advised me on settlements and we received the desired outcome very quickly. He also ran through various options on his fees and let me chose the one that worked for me. He is a pleasant and professional attorney and I recommend him highly.” L R. San Diego, CA _____________________
“My name is Jeffrey Walters and I was the lead class representative in a case against Pacific Eagle International Security, Inc., a company that provided armed security guard services for the U.S. Navy. During our case, Ward Heinrichs always responded to my phone calls and many e-mails regarding the many problems we all faced with this case. We worked closely together to prove that California wage law applied to Pacific Eagle, even though the class of security guards worked on property controlled by the Navy. Pacific Eagle believed that only federal wage law applied to it. Without Mr. Heinrichs’ unwavering persistence and total command of the difficult issues in the case, we probably would never have received the money Pacific Eagle owed us. Mr. Heinrichs presented the case through facts obtained through vigorous research. After two years of litigation, Pacific Eagle finally agreed to pay $900,000.00 to settle the class action for unpaid wages, un-reimbursed expenses, penalties, etc. I received $15,000.00 for being one of the class representatives in addition to my share of the money that Pacific Eagle owed me and my fellow security guards. I am very grateful for the hard work and commitment.”
Jeffrey Walters _____________________
“Ward Heinrichs is professional and knows employment law. He is personable, always answers his phone and was available anytime I called. As a person in transition for the very first time in 25 years, he has helped me move forward without any regrets. I would recommend Mr. Heinrichs for any employment related dispute.”
JFM Temecula, Ca. _____________________