On March 26, 2019, proposed Assembly Bill 5, which would codify the California Supreme Court’s controversial Dynamex decision, was amended to exempt certain types of licensed workers. Just as noteworthy as the types of workers identified as exempt from the standard are the types of employees who were not identified. For example, the exemption does not appear to cover trucking companies and gig economy transportation companies. If there are specific statutory exclusions, it will be difficult for courts to find exclusions in the common law.

By way of background, on April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued the Dynamex decision, an alarming decision for California employers utilizing independent contractors. In the opinion, the Court applied the “ABC Test” in determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor under the Wage Orders. Instead of the longstanding multi-factor Borello test, the Court found that the hiring entity has the burden to establish all of the following elements:

(A) The person 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

(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

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

Part B of the test is particularly problematic for a number of industries, especially those with established business models reliant upon the use of contractors.

After the decision, courts grappled with how to apply the decision and the State Capitol was bombarded with lobbyists. Three relevant bills have been proposed. AB 71 seeks to codify the longstanding Borello standard, AB 233 seeks to exempt insurance salespeople and AB 5 seeks to codify Dynamex.

On March 26th, AB 5 was amended to provide that the Borello factor test (and not the ABC Test) would apply to:

  1. Persons or organizations licensed by the Department of Insurance;
  2. licensed physicians or surgeons;
  3. securities broker-dealers or investment advisers or their agents and representatives that are registered with the SEC or FINRA or licensed by the State; and
  4. direct salespeople under Unemployment Insurance Code § 650 (licensed salespeople whose compensation is directly tied to the sale, such as real estate salespeople).

On Wednesday, April 3, AB 5 will be before the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee and AB 233 will be before the Assembly Insurance Committee.

The Dynamex decision has sent shockwaves through business community in California; and the legislature appears to be attempting to provide some clarity. Regardless of the outcome, the resulting legislation will have a significant impact on how companies do business in California. In the meantime, tracking the progress of the legislation may help companies prepare accordingly.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Benjamin A. Tulis Benjamin A. Tulis

Benjamin Tulis is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on advice and counsel within the labor and employment law sector. Ben is a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Ben counsels…

Benjamin Tulis is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on advice and counsel within the labor and employment law sector. Ben is a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Ben counsels employers on a host of employment issues, including wage and hour laws, leaves of absence, employment-related agreements, incentive plans, independent contractor classifications, exempt/non-exempt classifications, company policies, reductions in force, workplace investigations, employee discipline, litigation avoidance and helping employers address legal developments on the fly as they arise. Ben assists employers with a wide variety of employment-related agreements, including but not limited to employment agreements, confidentiality agreements, commission agreements, incentive plans, contractor agreements, severance agreements, arbitration agreements and various other agreements with employees and third parties. Ben helps employers develop incentive arrangements, including commission arrangements with industry-specific compliance issues.

Photo of Hazel U. Poei Hazel U. Poei

Hazel U. Poei is a principal in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Her practice is focused on single-plaintiff, multi-plaintiff, and class action employment litigation in state and federal courts.

Hazel has also handled arbitration proceedings and matters before administrative…

Hazel U. Poei is a principal in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Her practice is focused on single-plaintiff, multi-plaintiff, and class action employment litigation in state and federal courts.

Hazel has also handled arbitration proceedings and matters before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the California Civil Rights Department, and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Hazel has also prepared briefing to the United States Supreme Court.