California Tenants: Click for our Complete Guide to COVID-19 California Tenant Protections || (415) 226-7170

California Employee Misclassification

California Employee Misclassification Dynamex AB5

The classification of a worker as an employee or an independent contractor carries critical legal consequences for the worker.  Under California law, employee misclassification occurs where an employer abusively classifies a worker as an independent contractor, and deprives the worker of employee protections, including minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance, and paid time off.  Further, employers can be vicariously liable for employee torts, whereas a person hiring an independent contractor is generally not vicariously liable for the former’s torts.  Van Arsdale v. Hollinger, 68 Cal. 2d 245 (1968).  Misclassified employees have a claim against their employer and are entitled to recover damages stemming from the misclassification.

Evolution of California Employee Misclassification

In 2018, the California Supreme published Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), an opinion that would later introduce sweeping changes for California employees.  In 2019, the California Legislature passed AB5, which codified the changes by passing AB5 by adding Labor Code section 2750.3.  As a result of California’s sweeping reforms, workers statewide are now presumed to be employees instead of independent contractors. Further, the changes launched a new test for determining worker classification.

Striving to deter widespread employee misclassification, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC Test for determining whether a California worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor.  Having never been previously applied in California, the ABC Test presupposes a worker to be an employee, unless the hirer establishes all of the following conditions:

At the time of its publishing, Dynamex’s ABC Test was considered an express rejection of the longstanding “right to control” test outlined in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indust. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989).  While the ABC’s first prong is reminiscent of Borello’sright to control test, the rest of the test provides greater protection from abusive employee misclassification.  Despite the Dynamex decision’s limited applicability to IWC Wage Order violations, AB5 significantly expands the ABC Test’s reach to all violations of the Labor Code, FEHA and California Ban the Box violations, unemployment insurance, and worker’s compensation.  Today, millions of California employees work with dignity as they are protected from abusive employee misclassification.


 

Has your employer misclassified you as an independent contractor?
Recover Your Money Damages!
We can help.

Email Us Call Us

California Misclassified Employees Protected From Knowing Employer Abuse

In addition to ABC Test protections, misclassified employees are protected from knowing employer abuse. California employers cannot charge misclassified employees a fee or deduct from compensation for any purpose, including for goods, employer materials, space rentals, services, government licenses, repairs, equipment maintenance, or fines when such deductions would be unlawful if the individual were not misclassified.  California Labor Code § 226.8(a)(2).

California Employer-Employee Relationships Examples

Prior to the Dynamex holding and AB5’s passage, California courts found employer-employee relationships under the following circumstances:

Positions Exempt from Dynamex & AB5

Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex holding do not apply to the following occupations:

Workers in these exempt occupations continued to be governed by S.G. Borelleo & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indust. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989).

Contracts Exempt from Dynamex & AB5

Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex holding do not apply to a contract for “professional service,” which continues to be governed by S.G. Borlleo & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indust. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989).  Labor Code § 2750.3(c)(1).

Professional services mean services that meet any of the following:



Other Exemptions from Dynamex & AB5

California Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex holding do not apply to real estate licensees licensed by the State of California under Business & Professions Code section 10000 et seq., and repossession agencies licensed under Business & Professions Code section 7500.2. Further, Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex holding do not apply to certain bona fide business-to-business contracting relationships. Relationships between a contractor and subcontractor in the construction industry may also be exempt.  Subcontractors providing construction trucking services may also be exempt.  The relationship between a referral agency and a service provider is exempt from Labor Code section 2750.3 and the Dynamex holding in certain circumstances.  If you are uncertain about the applicability of your position or contract apropos California’s new employee misclassification protections, contact Astanehe Law to discuss your situation with an experienced employment attorney.

Money Damages for California Employee Misclassification

Misclassified employees can recover money damages.  These damages include lost wages arising from the misclassification, including for the employer’s failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, premium pay, and seventh-day pay.  Additionally, misclassified employees can recover unpaid benefits, including vacation pay, paid time off, paid sick leave, and other denied benefit compensation.

Misclassified employees will also recover numerous civil and statutory penalties.  Punitive damages may also be awarded.

Misclassified employees may also be able to recover their attorney fees and court costs associated with bringing a misclassification claim against the employer.

Injunctive Relief Action for Employee Misclassification

In addition to the remedies mentioned above, a misclassified employee can bring an action for injunctive relief to prevent continued misclassification.  Additionally, the attorney general, city attorney of a city having a population of at least 75,000 or in a city and county, or with the district attorney’s consent, or by a city prosecutor may bring an injunctive relief action on behalf of the people of the State of California.  Labor Code § 2750.3(j).

No Upfront Costs for California Employee Misclassification Lawsuit

Astanehe Law offers contingency representation.  This attorney fee structure means Astanehe Law clients do not pay attorney fees until after obtaining a successful settlement or judgment.  There are no upfront fees for representation and no fees if there is no recovery.  Astanehe Law has obtained a recovery for all employment law clients.

Astanehe Law Knows Employee Misclassification

Michael M. Astanehe possesses a zeal for helping employees bring claims against their employers.  Mr. Astanehe is an aggressive litigator with several years of civil litigation experience.  He is willing to take your case to trial if necessary.  This ferocity ensures that Astanehe Law obtains the highest recovery for each client.

Litigation is stressful. To that end, Mr. Astanehe provides each client with comprehensive legal service so that they remain fully informed and comfortable throughout the process. Astanehe Law strives to make litigation as stress-free as possible.

To discuss the California employee misclassification, AB5, or your right to recover money damages, contact Astanehe Law to speak with an experienced employment attorney today.

Astanehe Law Knows Your Rights

Contact Us Now

This is a unique website which will require a more modern browser to work!

Please upgrade today!