Law School Case Brief
Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court - 4 Cal. 5th 903, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 416 P.3d 1 (2018)
There are meritorious concerns regarding the disadvantages, particularly in the wage and hour context, inherent in relying upon a "multifactor, all the circumstances" standard for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. As a consequence, it is appropriate, and most consistent with the history and purpose of the suffer or permit to work standard in California's wage orders, to interpret that standard as: (1) placing the burden on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be included within the wage order's coverage; and (2) requiring the hiring entity, in order to meet this burden, to establish each of the three factors embodied in the ABC test—namely (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. (Dynamex), is a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service that operates a number of business centers in California. Dynamex offers on-demand, same-day pickup and delivery services to the public generally and also has a number of large business customers—including Office Depot and Home Depot—for whom it delivers purchased goods and picks up returns on a regular basis. Prior to 2004, Dynamex classified its California drivers as employees and compensated them pursuant to this state's wage and hour laws. In 2004, Dynamex converted all of its drivers to independent contractors after management concluded that such a conversion would generate economic savings for the company. Under the current policy, all drivers are treated as independent contractors and are required to provide their own vehicles and pay for all of their transportation expenses, including fuel, tolls, vehicle maintenance, and vehicle liability insurance, as well as all taxes and workers' compensation insurance.
Two individual delivery drivers, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of allegedly similarly situated drivers, filed a complaint against Dynamex, alleging that Dynamex had misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The drivers claimed that Dynamex's alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors led to Dynamex's violation of the provisions of Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 9, the applicable state wage order governing the transportation industry, as well as various sections of the Labor Code, and, as a result, that Dynamex had engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200. The trial court found that the drivers had been misclassified as independent contractors. The Court of Appeals denied writ relief.
Were the drivers misclassified as independent contractors?
The court held that in determining whether to classify workers as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of California's wage orders, enacted under constitutional and statutory authority (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 1; Lab. Code, §§ 1173, 1178, 1178.5, 1182, 1185), the “suffer or permit to work” standard set forth in the wage orders requires a hiring entity asserting independent contractor status to establish each of the three factors of the ABC test and show that a worker is free from its control, performing work outside the usual course of its business, and customarily engaged in independent work. A sufficient commonality of interest under part of the ABC test adequately supported the trial court's certification order.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.