• 550 West C Street
  • Suite 1600
  • San Diego, CA 92101
  • T: 619-696-0520 F: 619-238-5344
  • E-mail: info@thelawcorp.com
  • Se Habla Español

Preovolos Lewin & Hezlep, ALC

News & Events

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form


Posted by on in Corporate and Business Law
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 436
  • Print



The California Supreme Court adopted a new test this spring to determine if a business’s workers are “employees” or “independent contractors” under California wage orders. Wage orders govern minimum wages, maximum hours, and meal and rest breaks for millions of California employees.   The upshot of the decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court is it will be substantially harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors.


The Supreme Court ruled that all workers are preemptively employees under the wage orders and NOT independent contractors unless the hiring business establishes EACH of these three separate requirements.


First, is the worker free from the control and direction of the hirer in performing the work, both under the contract to do the work and in practice?  


So, a worker who is, either by contract or conduct, subject to same type and degree of control as a business exercises over its employees should be considered an employee and not an independent contractor.   But the business does not have to “control the precise manner or details of the work” to be an employer.


Second, does the worker perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business?


Is the worker reasonably viewed as performing services for a business comparable to an employee, instead of a traditional independent contractor?  So, workers performing “services … within the usual course of the business” would “ordinarily be viewed by others as working in the hiring entity’s business,” and are employees, not independent contractors.  Therefore, “an employee” now includes virtually all workers who engage in the same business as the hiring entity.


For example, if a retail business hired a plumber to repair a leak in a bathroom or an electrician to install a new electrical line in a store, the plumber or electrician would be providing services outside of the hiring company’s retail business, and should be independent contractors. 


But if a clothing manufacturer hired a work-at-home seamstress to sew clothing using cloth and patterns supplied by the company and the business later sold the finished products, the seamstress would be an employee.


Similarly, if a bakery hired a cake decorator to work from home on a regular basis on its custom-designed cakes sold by the bakery, the decorator would likely be an employee. 


Third, is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the hiring entity? 


Did the worker independently decided to go into business for herself?  If so, she likely satisfied the third requirement.  But, if the workers are “simply designated [as] … independent contractor[s] by the unilateral action of a hiring entity,” there is a substantial danger they will be found to be employees. 


A business does not have to prove that the workers incorporated themselves, obtained business licenses, advertised their business, etc. to satisfy this requirement.  However, just because a company does not prohibit a worker from engaging in such an independent business does not, by itself, prove that the worker independently made the decision to go into business for herself.  And, in Dynamex, the hiring business could not satisfy the final requirement because the court found it unilaterally reclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors to reduce its costs.


Key Take Aways


First, each business now has the burden of proving that its classification of workers as independent contractors satisfies each part of the new Supreme Court test.


Second, misclassification may expose businesses to substantial costs including attorney’s fees, fines, back pay, etc.    


Third, prudent businesses will review their classification of workers now to confirm compliance with Dynamex and not wait to be sued to then deal with the issue.


Also, remember that the result in each case is dependent on its unique facts so the information in this post may not precisely apply to your business situation.




The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Preovolos Lewin & Hezlep, ALC and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Last modified on

Mark offers more than twenty-five years of experience in the areas of real estate, construction, construction defect, and commercial litigation. He has successfully tried numerous jury and bench trials, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings.


  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Wednesday, 18 September 2019