In 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted the ABC Test for determining whether workers are independent contractors in the seminal case of Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. That test, generally speaking, is more favorable for workers because it requires hiring entities to prove that a worker (A) is free […]
Read more...Misclassification
Are taxi drivers independent contractors under Dynamex’s ABC Test?
Whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor has become a hotly disputed legal topic. This classification is important because independent contractors do not receive employment-related protections, such as the right to minimum and overtime wages, the prohibition against discrimination, and workers’ compensation. In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th […]
Read more...Employer Unlawfully Denies Truck Drivers Reimbursement by Misclassifying Them as Independent Contractors
Seacon Logix, Inc. (Seacon) transports cargo from the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles to warehouses or other facilities. Seacon hired and unlawfully classified its truck drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Seacon had its drivers complete and sign various documents, including
an agreement which provided that the drivers were independent contractors or subcontractors.
Seacon then leased its trucks to the drivers. Because the company classified the drivers as independent contractors, it deducted lease and insurance payments, and fuel and repair expenses from the truckers’ paychecks.
The truck drivers filed a class action lawsuit against Seacon. The plaintiffs alleged that they should have been classified as employees and that Seacon should not have deducted truck lease payments or insurance premiums from their paychecks. Continue reading “Employer Unlawfully Denies Truck Drivers Reimbursement by Misclassifying Them as Independent Contractors”
Read more...Halliburton Pays $18.3 Million in Overtime Wages to More than 1,000 of its Employees
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, oil and gas service provider Halliburton entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Labor. Halliburton agreed to pay $18,293,557 in overtime wages to 1,016 employees nationwide.
Halliburton misclassified employees in 28 job positions as exempt. These positions included field service representatives, pipe recovery specialists, drilling tech advisors, perforating specialists and reliability tech specialists. When these employees worked more than forty hours a week, Halliburton failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Halliburton also failed keep accurate records of the hours these employees worked. The company claims to have discovered it misclassified its employees during a self-audit. Continue reading “Halliburton Pays $18.3 Million in Overtime Wages to More than 1,000 of its Employees”
Read more...Being Classified as an Independent Contractor Instead of an Employee Denies Workers Important Benefits and Protections Under the Law
There is an increasing trend in this country for employers to misclassify employees as independent contractors. Workers who are misclassified as independent contractors are often denied important benefits and protections under the law, such as minimum wage, overtime compensation, family and medical leave, and unemployment insurance. Continue reading “Being Classified as an Independent Contractor Instead of an Employee Denies Workers Important Benefits and Protections Under the Law”
California Labor Commissioner Ruling that Uber Driver is an Employee is a Potential Big Win for California Employees
The California Labor Commissioner’s ruling this week that Uber drivers must be considered employees, not independent contractors, is a big step forward for the rights of hundreds of thousands of drivers in California. Although this ruling applies only to the driver Barbara Ann Berwick, who brought this complaint, it paves the way for class action lawsuits that could force the company to fundamentally change the way it does business. Continue reading “California Labor Commissioner Ruling that Uber Driver is an Employee is a Potential Big Win for California Employees”
A Win for Commissioned Salespeople: Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
In order to be exempt from the overtime requirements of California law (as well as other wage and hour laws such as those requiring meal and rest breaks), commissioned employees must meet two requirements: [1]
1. They must earn more than one and half times the applicable minimum wage[2] (“the minimum wage test”).
2. They must earn at least half of their wages from commissions.
This test therefore poses the following question: What about employees who, because of their commission structure, earn less than one and a half times the minimum wage in some pay periods? Are employers allowed to average an employee’s wages across pay periods in order to determine whether they meet the minimum wage test?
The California Supreme Court recently addressed this issue. In Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. the Court held that employers may not consider commission payments in other pay periods in order to meet the minimum wage test of the commissioned employee exemption.
Continue reading “A Win for Commissioned Salespeople: Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.”
Read more...Ayala v. Antelope Valley: When are “Independent Contractors” really Employees?
On June 30, 2014, in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the appropriate test to use when determining whether “independent contractors” are actually employees for the purposes of California’s wage and hour laws. The Court also provided a clear road map that lays out how courts should analyze class actions that raise this issue. These clarifications are welcome, and should help more plaintiffs achieve class certification in similar cases in the future.
The plaintiffs in Ayala deliver daily newspapers to people who subscribe to the Antelope Valley Press. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (Antelope) classifies these delivery men and women (called carriers) as independent contractors, not employees. As a result, they are deprived of the wage and hour protections to which they would otherwise be entitled.
Continue reading “Ayala v. Antelope Valley: When are “Independent Contractors” really Employees?”
Read more...What a Plaintiff Must Show To Win in an Off The Clock Case
“Off the clock” cases are those in which employees are not paid for all of the time they spend working. California courts have recognized that where an employer has either “actual” or “constructive” notice that an employee is working, the employer must pay the employee for that time. See Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 585; White v. Starbucks (N.D.Cal.2007) 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1083.
“Actual” means that the employer actually knew that the employee was working. “Constructive” means that the employer should have known that the employee was working. The constructive prong of this test is important: It means that an employer cannot avoid its obligation to pay an employee by intentionally ignoring the fact that that employee is working.
A recent decision from the First District Court of Appeal clarifies what a plaintiff must show in order to win in an off the clock case. Continue reading “What a Plaintiff Must Show To Win in an Off The Clock Case”
Read more...Duran v. U.S. Bank: Statistics Remain an Important and Viable Tool in Achieving Class Certification
On May 29, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank (2014) S20093. Class action practitioners throughout the state have been awaiting this decision for some time, hoping that it will provide guidance as to how to properly litigate “misclassification” cases. (Misclassification cases are those in which the plaintiffs claim that they were improperly exempted from overtime and other wage and hour laws.)
Duran may not have gone as far as some hoped. However, its most important point is clear: Statistics remain a viable way to prove both liability and damages in class actions-provided, that is, that the methodology underlying the statistics is sound. Continue reading “Duran v. U.S. Bank: Statistics Remain an Important and Viable Tool in Achieving Class Certification”
Read more...