Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of employment protections under California’s wage orders.[1] Their claims raised the question of what the appropriate standard was to determine whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors under California’s wage orders.[2]
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court | |
---|---|
Decided April 30, 2018 | |
Full case name | Dynamex Operations West, Inc., v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest |
Citation(s) | 4 Cal.5th 903, 416 P.3d 1, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 |
Case history | |
Prior history | Review granted from 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 69 |
Holding | |
A hiring entity bears the burden of establishing that a worker is an independent contractor not subject to wage order protections. To meet that burden, the hiring entity has to meet each of the three prongs of the ABC test. Applying this test, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment that there were sufficient common interests among Dynamex drivers to certify the class. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Tani Cantil-Sakauye |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Tani Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Ming Chin, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Leondra Kruger, Peter Siggins |
In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court held that workers are presumptively employees for the purpose of California’s wage orders and that the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that a worker is an independent contractor not subject to wage order protections.[3] The Court also held that in order to establish that a worker is an independent contractor, the hiring entity must prove each of the three parts of the “ABC test.”[4] In applying this new test to Dynamex and its workers, the Court found that there was sufficient commonality of interest among the class of drivers with respect to parts B and C of the test to affirm the class certification issued by the California Court of Appeal.[3] The decision inspired public debate and legislative action on this issue, which culminated when the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 5 ("AB5") on September 11, 2019.[5] The law codifies the Dynamex holding and extends its protections beyond the wage order context.[6]