Let Me Tell You What It’s All About
Jan-Pro Franchising, International, Inc. is a franchisor whose franchisees offer cleaning and janitorial services. In
Vazquez v. Jan- Pro (“
Vazquez”), in May 2017, the Northern District of California granted Jan-Pro summary judgment in a case brought by independent contractor franchisees claiming they should have been treated as Jan-Pro employees. The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
Dynamex (which we previously posted about here). In
Dynamex, the court held that, for purposes of claims arising from the Wage Orders, the “ABC” test governs whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees.
Seyfarth Synopsis:
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that the worker friendly “ABC” test set forth by the Court in its 2018 landmark ruling, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, applies retroactively. The ABC test thus applies to all pending cases governed by the California Wage Orders in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc.
The Facts
Jan-Pro Franchising, International, Inc. is a franchisor whose franchisees offer cleaning and janitorial services. In May 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Jan-Pro summary judgment in a case brought by independent contractor franchisees claiming they should have been treated as Jan-Pro employees. The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Since April 2018, when the California Supreme Court issued its
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) decision, which radically changed the way in which courts differentiated between an independent contractor and employee in California, businesses have grappled with the ever-expanding grip of that decision. One of the key questions, unaddressed in the
Dynamex decision, was whether it was intended to be applied retroactively. Litigants have been grappling with this question for almost two years. Yesterday the question was answered. More specifically, in
Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising, Inc., 2021 WL 127201 (Cal.),(Jan 14, 2021) the California Supreme answered the Ninth Circuit’s call to determine whether the Dynamex independent contractor test (commonly referred to as the A-B-C test) should be applied retroactively. The answer is yes.
By now, you should all know about California’s
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court decision, which was the impetus for changing the state’s worker classification law. If you need a refresher on
Dynamex and the ABC test, you may read more about it here.
When the California Supreme Court issued its
Dynamex decision in 2018, it adopted the ABC test for determining whether a given worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. However, the Court did not decide whether the ABC test applied to those cases that pre-dated the
Dynamex decision, or only applied prospectively. As such, its retroactive application has become a question for which nearly everyone is seeking an answer to the tune of several lawsuits and bills at the state Capitol.
Tuesday, December 15, 2020
While the California courts were relatively quiet during 2020, the California Supreme Court has a few heavy-hitting employment cases pending for 2021.
Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and why.
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC
AMN Services (“AMN”) used a computer-based timekeeping system, which required employees such as Plaintiff to click on an icon to open the program each day and would “punch in and out” for the start of the day, meal periods, and end of the day. The timekeeping system recorded employee’s time in 10-minute increments. AMN then rounded this time to the nearest hundredth.