If someone were to ask whether you like the song, “Gloria,” you’d be right to ask, “Which version?”
There’s the version written by Van Morrison and recorded by his band Them, later covered by Patti Smith, The Doors, and a gaggle of others. That’s the version that goes, “G-L-O-R-I-A, Gloooooria!” (I’m gonna shout it out every day.)
Then there’s the version recorded by Laura Branigan in 1982, originally written in Italian by Umberto Tozzi. (Fun fact!) You know that one — “You’re always on the run now. Running after somebody, you gotta get him somehow.”
Of course the right answer is that you prefer the first version, but my point is that there are multiple versions of “Gloria.” Same name, different song.
This is the same approach California courts seem to be taking with the state’s test for Independent Contractor vs. Employee. Same question, different tests. Many of you will recall the April 2018 Dynamex decision, in which the California Supreme Court adopted a strict ABC Test for determining whether a worker is an employee under California’s Industrial Wage Orders.
But the Dynamex decision did not address whether the new ABC Test would be used to determine whether someone is a contractor or an employee under California’s other state labor laws. Now we know.
The answer, according to a California Court of Appeal decision last week, is that there’s room for both “G-L-O-R-I-A” and “You’re always on the run now.” (You’re welcome, Laura Branigan.)
In last week’s case, called Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, the court considered an eight-count complaint brought by a taxicab driver who had been treated as an independent contractor. The driver claimed he should have been treated as an employee and that various state laws, which apply only to employees, were not followed. The court ruled that different tests apply to different claims.
The Court ruled that the claims brought under California’s Industrial Wage Orders had to be evaluated under the Dynamex ABC Test and, for these claims, the driver had to be considered an employee. The claims subject to the Dynamex test were the claims alleging unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, and the unfair competition (UCL) claims arising out of the wage order violations.
On the other hand, the driver’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, waiting time penalties, and the UCL claims stemming from these allegations had to be evaluated under the more traditional S.G. Borello balancing test, which includes elements of a Right to Control Test but incorporates other factors too, making it a hybrid test. Under the S.G. Borello standard, the Court ruled that the driver was properly classified as an independent contractor. (The plaintiff alleged failure to pay overtime too. Typically, overtime claims are governed by the Industrial Wage Orders, but the overtime rules do not apply to taxicab drivers.)
For those who like score cards, here is a list showing (a) the claims that were filed, and (b) which test must be used to determine Independent Contractor vs. Employee under each claim, according to the Garcia case. I have color-coded the claims because it looks pretty:
1. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Lab. Code, §§ 923 [employees may organize], 6310 [retaliation for an OSHA complaint], 6400 [duty to provide a safe work environment], 1102.5 [whistleblower protection].) S.G. Borello balancing test
2. Unpaid wages under the wage order. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11090.) Dynamex ABC Test
3. Failure to pay minimum wage. (Lab. Code, §§ 1182.12 [minimum wage], 1194 [right of action], 1194.2 [liquidated damages], 1197 [duty to pay minimum wage].) Dynamex ABC Test
4. Failure to pay overtime. (Lab. Code, §§ 510 [overtime], 1194 [right of action].) – Not applicable
5. Failure to provide meal and rest breaks. (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7 [rest periods], 512 [meal breaks].) Dynamex ABC Test
6. Failure to furnish accurate wage statements. (Lab. Code, §§ 226 [wage statements], 226.3 [civil penalties], 2699 [PAGA penalties].) Dynamex ABC Test
7. Waiting time penalties. (Lab. Code, §§ 201−202 [wages and leave due upon departure], 203 [penalties].) S.G. Borello balancing test
8. Unfair competition (UCL), based on the foregoing violations. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; Lab. Code, § 2699 [PAGA penalties].) Dynamex ABC Test for the alleged violations of the wage order; S.G. Borello balancing test for the other claims
That’s the state of the law at this moment, but of course the California Supreme Court could weigh in again later as to whether S.G. Borello should still be used at all.
The explanation given in the Garcia case, though, for why the different tests should be used for different claims makes perfect sense. The definition of employee in Dynamex is broader than in the other statutes, as the California Supreme Court explained in the Dynamex decision.
So there you have it. Different definition of employee, different tests.
Shout it out all night!
Shout it out every day!
© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.