CMCP Diversity Matters - January/February 2019
California Minority Counsel Program Diversity Matters - January/February 2018
California Minority Counsel Program Diversity Matters - January/February 2018
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CALIFORNIA COURT<br />
OF APPEAL FOLLOWS<br />
DYNAMEX TO APPLY<br />
ABC TEST TO WAGE<br />
ORDER CLAIMS<br />
BY BETHANIE THAU<br />
ASSOCIATE, MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP<br />
In our last newsletter we<br />
discussed the California<br />
Supreme Court’s decision<br />
in Dynamex Operations<br />
West, Inc. v. Superior<br />
Court, 4 Cal.5 th 903 (2018),<br />
which set a new standard for<br />
determining whether a worker<br />
is an employee or independent<br />
contractor under the Industrial<br />
Welfare Commission (IWC)<br />
wage orders. In the landmark<br />
decision, the Court adopted<br />
the so-called “ABC” test, which<br />
presumes that all workers are<br />
employees unless the hiring<br />
party proves otherwise under its<br />
stringent three-part test.<br />
Recently, in Garcia v. Border<br />
Transportation Group, LLC,<br />
a California Court of Appeal<br />
retroactively applied the “ABC”<br />
test to hold that summary<br />
judgment could not be granted<br />
in favor of a taxicab company<br />
that purported to engage drivers<br />
as independent contractors,<br />
and not as employees. While<br />
the Garcia Court provided<br />
additional guidance on part<br />
“C” of the ABC test, it arguably<br />
raised new questions that<br />
need to be answered in future<br />
cases involving wage and hour<br />
overtime claims that are being<br />
Continued on next page...<br />
<strong>January</strong>/<strong>February</strong> <strong>2019</strong> | 23
Change language