Dynamex In Retrograde – Misclassification Test And Its Retroactive Reach May Open The Flood Gates For Misclassification Cases In California

Author:Ms Anne Cherry Barnett, Mara D. Curtis and Eniola O. Akinrinade
Profession:Reed Smith
 
FREE EXCERPT

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court turned worker classification on its head when it decided Dynamex Operations West Inc v. Superior Court (Dynamex). In Dynamex, the court adopted a three-factor "ABC" test for analyzing misclassification claims under the California Wage Orders. Under the ABC test, for an employer to show that workers were properly classified as independent contractors, they must demonstrate that: the worker (A) was not under the company's direct control and direction; (B) performed work that was outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) was customarily engaged in an independent business. Because of, in particular, the second element of the test, this standard makes it very difficult for businesses to prove that workers are independent contractors.

Since last year's ruling in Dymanex, there has been much speculation about the application of the decision, specifically whether it applies retroactively and the scope of any application of the "ABC" test.

To the shock of employers, on May 2, 2019, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (the Panel), in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Jan-Pro), held that the Dynamex rule should be applied retroactively.

In Jan-Pro, the plaintiffs accused a janitorial services company of misclassifying its franchisees as independent contractors. While the initial outcome of the district court was to dismiss the claim, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling - after Dynamex was decided. In the appeal, the plaintiffs asked the court to rule that Dynamex applied retroactively. The defendant took the position that applying the ABC test retroactively would be unfair. More specifically, it would be unfair for the defendant to face liability for alleged misclassification under a new and different test when it had previously been operating legally under the then-existing test.

The Panel vacated the district court's pre-Dynamex dismissal. The Panel held that California law requires that it apply Dynamex retroactively and remanded the case to the district court for consideration on the merits under the Dynamex ABC test. In reaching this ruling, the Panel explained that the Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex was based on the history and purpose...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP