Judge Orders Uber and Lyft to Treat Drivers as Employees

On August 10, a California judge issued a remarkable order blocking Uber and Lyft from continuing to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. This preliminary injunction from Judge  Ethan P. Schulman of San Francisco Superior Court  comes as part of the litigation brought by the State of California against Uber and Lyft because of the ride-hailing companies’ flagrant disregard for their duties under Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5). 

A.B. 5 codified the Supreme Court of California’s decision in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and was signed into law in September of 2019. Under A.B. 5 and Dynamex, drivers for Uber and Lyft should be considered employees, not independent contractors. Despite this, Uber and Lyft have continued to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors. Hopefully, the August 10 injunction forces the companies to finally change course.

 

The court highlighted that when companies like Uber and Lyft misclassify their employees as independent contractors, they deprive them of access to basic workers’ rights and protections including minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave. These worker protections are extremely important to working families and the economy as a whole, especially in the face of the challenges posed by a pandemic. 

 

The court explains that in order to grant a preliminary injunction of Uber and Lyft’s violations of A.B. 5, the government must demonstrate that it had a reasonable probability of prevailing, with a presumption that the nonissuance of an injunction would be harmful to the public. This is different than in an ordinary case with private parties, where the party seeking the injunction faces a higher burden. This is because by enacting a statute, the legislature has already determined that a violation goes against the public interest.

 

In this case, the court opined that the government demonstrated an “overwhelming likelihood” of prevailing and that “substantial public harm” will result without an injunction. According to the court, Uber and Lyft’s violations of A.B. 5 pose, “real harms to real working people.” Under A.B. 5’s “ABC” test, a person is properly classified as an independent contractor if: (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work; (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

 

The judge in this decision primarily examined element B, which requires that the work performed be “outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” Uber argued, as it has before, that it is a technology company, rather than a company that provides car rides, and that its “actual employees” work in engineering, development, marketing, and operations. Driving, the company insists, is not part of Uber’s usual course of business. The court rejected this argument, instead insisting that Uber could not survive without its drivers. Because drivers are central to Uber and Lyft's business models, they should be classified as employees. 

 

Since the August 10 order, Uber and Lyft have threatened to halt operations in California, and Judge Schulman has denied the companies’ request for an extension of the deadline to appeal. Uber and Lyft have been attempting to delay their compliance with A.B. 5 because the companies are funding a ballot measure, Proposition 22, which would re-classify drivers as independent contractors. In issuing the injunction, however, the judge explained that he could not excuse the companies from compliance with A.B. 5 simply because they are waiting to see if Proposition 22 passes in November.

 

Bryan Schwartz Law has written about A.B. 5 and Dynamex here, here, here, and here. If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Ashley Judd’s Sexual Harassment Case Against Harvey Weinstein Can Go Forward

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court dismissal of actor Ashley Judd’s sexual harassment claim against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Ninth Circuit opinion allows Judd’s sexual harassment claim to go forward. This decision illustrates how sexual harassment claims are not limited to standard employer/employee or service provider/client relationships.

Judd alleges that she was sexually harassed by Weinstein in 1996 or 1997, when she was starting her acting career and Weinstein was a powerful producer. Judd says Weinstein harassed her during a meeting intended to discuss potential acting opportunities. After she rejected his advances, Judd claims Weinstein prevented her from being cast in movies he produced. Notably, Judd alleges that Weinstein blocked her casting in The Lord of the Rings adaptations in retaliation. In fact, the reason Judd can bring her suit so many years after the usual statute of limitations has passed is because she says did not discover that Weinstein had been retaliating against her until Peter Jackson, who directed, produced, and wrote The Lord of the Rings films, gave an interview in 2017 about Weinstein’s actions against Judd. See Judd v. Weinstein, No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018). Judd was able to use California’s “discovery rule,” which is an exception to the general rules regarding statutes of limitation. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitation begins to run not when the injury occurs, but instead when the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. See No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *4.

 

Among other claims, Judd sued Weinstein in April 2018 for sexual harassment in a professional relationship under California Civil Code Section 51.9. While allowing her other claims to go forward, the United States District Court of the Central District of California dismissed Judd’s sexual harassment claim because it believed Judd and Weinstein did not have the requisite type of professional relationship described in section 51.9.

 

Section 51.9 is part of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits business discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. Section 51.9 specifically prohibits sexual harassment in a variety of business relationships outside the workplace. Over the years, section 51.9 has been amended to specifically cover producer/actor relationships. However, because the alleged harassment occurred in 1996 or 1997, the court clarifies that it must use the 1996 version of section 51.9.

 

In 1996, as the Ninth Circuit explains, the law required the plaintiff to have a certain type of business, service, or professional relationship with the defendant. The 1996 statute listed examples of the types of professional relationships covered by the law, including those between plaintiffs and physicians, attorneys, social workers, accountants, teachers, real estate agents, landlords, and other specific professions. The statute also covered relationships, “substantially similar to any of the above.” Because the relationship between an actor and a producer was not specifically enumerated in the statute, Judd argued that her professional relationship with Weinstein was substantially similar to those listed. The district court disagreed, holding that the defining characteristic of the enumerated relationships was that they were all between service providers and clients. See No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *9. Because Weinstein and Judd did not have a service provider/client relationship, the district court dismissed her claim.

 

Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Judd. The Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the district court opinion states that the key element in the enumerated relationships is that, “an inherent power imbalance exists such that, by virtue of his or her ‘business, service, or professional’ position, one party is uniquely situated to exercise coercion or leverage over the other.” Because Judd was an actor at the beginning of her career and Weinstein was an established and powerful Hollywood producer, their relationship may have been defined by an inherent power imbalance. Under the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of section 51.9, Judd and Weinstein’s professional relationship is potentially covered by the statute and she may pursue her sexual harassment claim. The case has been remanded to the district court.

 

Section 51.9 looks different now than it did in 1996. The statute was amended in 2018 and now explicitly covers sexual harassment by directors, producers, elected officials, and lobbyists, in addition to all of the professions previously specified.

 

In this week’s decision, the Ninth Circuit recognized the importance of protecting people from sexual harassment in a wide variety of contexts. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and section 51.9 are important tools in the fight against injustice.

 

Bryan Schwartz Law has written about sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation many times before. If you believe you were sexually harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Rights and Resources for Workers in the Era of COVID-19

Bryan Schwartz Law wants workers to know their rights and what resources are available to them during the coronavirus pandemic.

• The California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) has put out a newsletter in English, Chinese, and Spanish with resources and guidance on the rights of California workers.

• CELA has also put out a guide for pregnant and parenting workers.

•  Legal Aid at Work, Centro Legal de La Raza, and Bet Tzedek have released a resource guide in both English and Spanish.

•  Legal Aid at Work has also prepared an FAQ on coronavirus and the workplace in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

• Legal Aid at Work is conducting clinics virtually for workers throughout the state.

• Bet Tzedek’s Employment Rights Team will be holding weekly virtual clinics each Wednesday from 5-7pm PST. Those interested in making an appointment should call Bet Tzedek’s main line at 323-939-0506 extension 415.

• The Center for Workers' Rights is operating a Coronavirus Job Protection Helpline to help answer questions about workplace rights. Call 916-905-1625 from 9 am - 5:30 pm M-F. If you are in the Sacramento area, you can reach the line by dialing 211.

• The California Employment Development Department has issued guidance for both workers and employers on issues such as filing for unemployment and business closures.

• A Better Balance has resources for various states, including California.

•  If you are undocumented:

o    Here is a list of California relief funds in English and Spanish for those who have lost their jobs due to coronavirus.

o    The California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance has put together resources in various languages, including English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

This is not a comprehensive list, but we hope that it can help workers feel more protected during this difficult time. We encourage folks to follow the organizations mentioned above on social media for real-time information.

We are lucky in California to have so many organizations that are dedicated to protecting workers’ rights and strong laws protecting workers. We’re in this together. If you feel like your rights are being violated in the workplace, contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

Blowing the Whistle—When Can You Go to Court about Retaliation?

Whistleblowers—employees who sound the alarm on their employer’s or coworkers’ illegal activity—are vital to protect the public from corporate and government wrongdoing. But there are understandable reasons that employees choose not to speak out, including fear of retaliation. Whistleblower protection laws are designed to prohibit retaliation and encourage whistleblowing.

California’s whistleblower protection laws are some of the nation’s most expansive. A central component of California’s whistleblower protection scheme is Section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code, which, among other protections, prevents employers from retaliating against employees who make complain internally, make whistleblowing reports to government agencies, or participate in government investigations. Section 1102.5 aims to encourage employees to speak out against wrongdoing. The 2003 amendments also codified the California appellate court decision in Gardenhire v. City of Los Angeles Housing Authority (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 236, to clarify that a government employee’s report to the agency where they work constitutes whistleblowing activity.

But when do government whistleblowers get to enforce their rights in court? Sometimes, government employees who are subject to retaliatory acts—such as termination, demotion, official discipline, etc.—file administrative complaints. Such a complaint can involve a hearing, presentation of evidence, and legal representation, among other formal aspects. Sometimes, the administrative process will eliminate an individual’s right to proceed in court altogether. If an administrative decision lacks the “requisite judicial character” to constitute a full resolution of the legal issue, a court may step in. Sometimes an administrative decision will not be considered a final decision if that would go against the legislature’s intent, given that the legislature created the administrative body in the first place.   

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the legislative intent exception as it applies to public sector employees alleging whistleblower retaliation in Bahra v. County of San Bernardino. The plaintiff, Eric Bahra, was employed by San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and Family Services, which investigates referrals regarding child abuse, among other duties. While investigating allegations of abuse against a foster parent, Bahra discovered that the foster parent had a prior history of child abuse and neglect, but this history was not reflected in the agency’s database due to errors in previous entries.

He told his manager. Later that day, he witnessed his manager and another agency employee looking through the files on his desk. Next, the agency initiated an investigation into Bahra, assigned him to desk duty, then placed him on administrative leave. Eventually, the agency provided Bahra with a notice of proposed dismissal. He contested it in an initial administrative hearing in 2013, but the hearing officer ruled for the County and the agency dismissed Bahra. He appealed and requested a full evidentiary hearing at the County’s Civil Service Commission. After a 14-day hearing and testimony from 27 witnesses in 2014, the Commission’s hearing officer, in 2015, rejected Bahra’s retaliation claims, and the Commission adopted the hearing officer’s report. Although he was informed that he could seek a writ of mandamus pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, he elected not to do so. Instead, he filed a civil suit in the United States District Court, bringing claims under Section 1102.5 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed the complaint in 2018 on grounds of issue preclusion and claim preclusion, meaning, that because the matter had been fully adjudicated administratively, it could not be brought in court.

On December 30, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed as to Bahra’s Section 1102.5 claim. The court analyzed two state court decisions: Taswell v. Regents of University of California 23 Cal.App.5th 343 (2018), in which the California Court of Appeals held that administrative findings by a state agency do not preclude retaliation claims brought under Section 1102.5; and, Murray v. Alaska Airlines 50 Cal.4th 860 (2010), where the California Supreme Court held that a federal employee’s retaliation claim was precluded. The agency argued that Murray indicated that the California Supreme Court would disagree with Taswell.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument. First, the court stated that Murray was highly specific to the factual and legal circumstances of the case. It did not purport to apply to all administrative decisions, especially in light of federalism issues at play in Murray but absent in Bahra. Second, Murray analyzed the first exception—the “sufficiently judicial character” exception—and not the legislative intent exception. Third, the Ninth circuit looked to California Supreme Court precedent more recent than Murray, including decisions on which Taswell relied, which suggested that the California Supreme Court would agree with Taswell. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Department of Child and Family Services decision did not preclude Bahra from bringing his Section 1102.5 claim to court.

But it was not a total victory for Bahra; the Ninth Circuit ruled against him with respect to his Section 1983 claims. Bahra had not argued that giving preclusive effect to the Section 1983 decision would go against legislative intent, so the Ninth Circuit did not address the issue. Instead, the court looked exclusively to the judicial character of the proceeding and, finding it sufficient, held that the Section 1983 claim was precluded, affirming the lower court.

If you have suffered workplace retaliation for whistleblowing activity, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

New Decade, New Worker Protections: AB-5, Dynamex, and Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status in 2020

Struggles over newly-in-force AB-5 are already well under way.

AB (California State Assembly Bill) 5 is a newly-enacted California law codifying the landmark California Supreme Court case Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, under which many California workers are considered employees, who better benefit from California legal protections, rather than independent contractors. Bryan Schwartz Law has written about Dynamex here and here, and about AB-5 here. To recap, Dynamex established the “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, with a presumption that a worker is an employee, and with the burden on companies to demonstrate that workers are independent contractors. Id. at 957. To meet this burden, the putative employer must show that the worker: (a) is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, (b) performs work outside the usual scope of the entity’s business, and (c) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Id. at 964. Failing to demonstrate any one of these elements is sufficient to show an employee-employer relationship. Id. at 964. AB-5 codified this test for most workers in California.

The business community has mounted a campaign to weaken or eliminate this expansive protection for California workers. For instance, gig economy giants Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have spent millions of dollars introducing a ballot measure to exempt them from AB-5 and permit them to continue exploiting their drivers. Uber has also changed its operations in California to try and satisfy AB-5, sending a letter to riders explaining their changes and threatening that AB-5 could hurt riders. Uber has also argued that it is a technology company instead of a transportation company (which does not even pass the laugh test), to try to help Uber satisfy the “B” prong of the test.

The trucking industry has also fought AB-5. On New Year’s Eve, federal judge Roger Benitez issued a temporary restraining order temporarily preventing enforcement of AB-5 “as to any motor carrier operating in California,” in the case California Trucking Association v. Becerra, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-NLM. The temporary restraining order opined that there was a significant likelihood that AB-5’s applicability to truck drivers would be preempted (and thereby unenforceable) by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA” or “F-Quad-A”), which has language that applies to “any motor carrier.”

Los Angeles County Superior Court judge William Highberger went further in an order issued earlier this month in California v. CAL Cartage Transportation Express LLC, BC689320. The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office filed the case on January 1, 2018, before Dynamex had been decided, and alleged that the company defendants had misclassified their truck drivers as independent contractors when they should have been classified as employees. Following Dynamex and AB-5, the Los Angeles City Attorney argued that the stronger “ABC” test should apply, while the defendant companies maintained that the previous multi-factor independent contractor test set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, should apply instead. The judge sided with the defendant companies, opining that AB-5 was in fact preempted by the FAAAA, under the premise that “Prong B of the ABC test . . . prohibits motor carriers from using independent contractors to provide transportation services.”

The issue is far from decided. Judge Highberger’s decision is surely going to be challenged on appeal, and hundreds of truck drivers have filed labor complaints to enforce their rights under AB-5, signaling further litigation. There also remains the question of whether Dynamex’s ABC test applies retroactively to disputes arising before Dynamex was handed down. Last fall, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified this question to the California Supreme Court in Vazquez v. Pan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. The California Supreme Court is also reviewing a state appeals court case, Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., which held Dynamex to apply retroactively. The struggle over the worker protections of Dynamex and AB-5 goes on.

If you believe you are being treated as an independent contractor when you should be treated as an employee, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Settling for More: 9th Circuit Rules on Standards for Class Action Settlements

In most circumstances, opposing parties can resolve a legal dispute among themselves out of court until a court case is over. Class cases are different. To settle a class case, the parties have to ask the court hearing the case for approval.

This is because in class action settlements, absent class members waive their claims in exchange for the benefits of the settlement. Without notice of the settlement and its key terms, class members could waive their legal claims without realizing it, having a say in the terms of the agreement, or having the opportunity opt out of the agreement. This implicates absent class members’ due process rights.

To protect absent class members’ rights, the hearing court has a special duty to ensure that sufficient notice is provided to class members. The court must also take care that the settlement itself is fair. While courts usually balance and adjudicate competing interests in an adversarial context, the settling parties are in agreement in the context of a class action settlement. Especially concerning is the prospect that the parties could bargain away absent class members’ rights in order to secure a quick resolution that may not be in the class’s best interest.

Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a class action settlement agreement in the high-profile class action case Murphy v. SFBSC Management. A pair of erotic dancers filed a class action case on behalf of 4,681 putative class members who currently or previously worked as erotic dancers for SFBSC Management’s 11 adult entertainment clubs in San Francisco, alleging that they had been misclassified as independent contractors when they should have been classified as employees. Bryan Schwartz Law has blogged about the distinction between employees and independent contractors here and here.

The parties settled and sought court approval. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement, providing for notice of the settlement agreement to be sent to the class members’ last known mailing addresses, posted at the nightclubs’ dressing rooms, and posted online on a website created for this purpose. Initially, 1,546 notices were returned as undeliverable; after the settlement administrator performed address traces and resent notices, 560 notices remained undeliverable. Many class members lodged objections on several bases, but the court approved the settlement. The objectors appealed.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit agreed with almost all of the objectors’ complaints about the settlement agreement and the notice process.

I.                    Adequacy of the Notice

The objectors attacked the notice of class settlement in two ways. First, they argued that the notice did not inform class members that other similar lawsuits had been filed by other erotic dancers. The 9th Circuit rejected this claim—the only argument the objectors raised that the court rejected—holding that the class notices did not need to provide information to class members regarding related cases. Likewise, the notice did not need to describe any objections to the settlement agreement that had been raised.

Second, the objectors argued that the process of distributing the notice was insufficient. In particular, the objectors argued that the failure to provide any electronic notice (besides the website) was not the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The 9th Circuit agreed, noting that as many as 12% of the class received no notice by mail. In addition, the posters hung in the dressing rooms could only be viewed by current employees, whereas the class included former employees as well. Importantly, electronic notice may have been warranted if “reasonably calculated to appraise all class members of the settlement,” including email or even social media or “relevant online messaging boards.”

II.                 Standard of Review

Before the court examined the fairness of the agreement, the court first clarified the standard for courts to assess class action settlements. A court reviewing a class action settlement before the class has been certified requires a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry. Reviewing courts should be on the lookout for subtle signs of collusion between the parties. The trial court in this case had begun its analysis with a presumption of fairness where a settlement was the product of arms-length negotiations between experienced attorneys. This standard was incorrect. The 9th Circuit also stated that it would not accept the mere presence of a neutral mediator as conclusive proof that the settlement was fair.

III.              Fairness of the Agreement

Next, the court examined several aspects of the settlement agreement that indicated possible unfairness. One of these was a clear sailing agreement with regards to attorneys’ fees. Under the provision, SFBSC Management agreed not to contest class counsel’s request for up to $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. The 9th Circuit observed that such agreements could be indicia that the agreement was reached at the expense of the class’s interests, especially in light of the high amount of attorneys’ fees requested.

The free sailing provision in this case called for attorneys’ fees greater than the net $864,115 to be distributed to the class. The parties arrived at the high amount of attorneys’ fees as a percentage of the total benefit of the settled claims, including the estimated value of two other areas of relief provided in the settlement agreement: (1) a Dance Fee Payment Pool, and (2) injunctive relief. Objectors challenged the sufficiency of the valuations for each, which had been set at $1,000,000 each.

Under the settlement agreement, class members could elect to receive payment from the Dance Fee Payment Pool of up to $1,000,000 in lieu of a lump sum cash settlement share. This money would come from the charges that the nightclubs would ordinarily retain from customer payments per dance. Dancers who selected this option could receive up to $8,000, but dancers had a limited amount of time in which to accrue payments from the Dance Fee Payment Pool.  

The court likened the Dance Fee Payment Pool to coupons, with reduced value to the class. This option had an expiration date, was not transferable, and required class members who no longer worked with SFBSC Management to do business with it again in order to claim the value. The 9th Circuit held that a court approving a class action settlement could not rely on such valuations except in the rare instance when non-monetary relief could be valuated exactly. Here, the parties did not put forth any evidence to support their valuation of the coupons.

Similarly, the 9th Circuit was troubled by the $1,000,000 valuation of the injunctive relief. The settlement agreement provided that SFBSC Management would allow dancers to elect whether to work as employees or independent contractors, each with its own form of compensation and employment structure. The court faulted the trial court for failing to make any findings specifically justifying the valuation of this benefit at $1,000,000.

The court was also wary of the enhancement awards called for in the settlement agreement for the named plaintiffs, to be taken from the general settlement fund. While the court was not concerned by the $5,000 enhancement payments in recognition of the plaintiffs’ efforts to represent the class and prosecute the case, the court found suspect the $20,000 enhancement payment for the general release the plaintiffs signed. The court saw no service to the class compensated by this enhancement. As such, the court viewed the enhancement as evidence of a potential side deal between the named plaintiffs and the employer, at the class’s expense, giving rise to a potential conflict of interest.

The court also looked at the settlement agreement’s reversionary effect. If class members did not cash their checks, those amounts would have reverted to SFBSC Management, rather than being redistributed to the class or a charitable organization that furthers the beneficial goals of the litigation. The 9th Circuit observed that reversionary agreements can indicate unfairness to the class, especially when coupons are involved. Combined, these factors drove the 9th circuit to reverse the trial court’s approval of the settlement agreement and remand for further proceedings.

If you have a dispute with your employer, contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

No Question of Timing – Dynamex Applies Retroactively, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Says

It makes a big difference whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Employees benefit from the protections of labor, employment, and other valuable statutory protections that do not cover independent contractors.

The breadth of “employee” status has been clarified under developing California law. Last year, the California Supreme Court decided the landmark case Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, about which Bryan Schwartz Law has written previously. This case established the “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, with a presumption that a worker is an employee, i.e., with the burden on putative employers to demonstrate that workers are independent contractors. Id. at 957. To meet this burden, the putative employer must show (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, (b) the worker performs work outside the usual scope of the entity’s business, and (c) the worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Id. at 964. Failing to demonstrate any one of these elements is sufficient to show an employee-employer relationship. Id. at 964.

But does the Dynamex test apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided? It does, according to the decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on May 2, 2019. Workers for international janitorial giant Jan-Pro filed this case in 2008, alleging Jan-Pro implements a business model to misclassify workers as independent contractors and escape the company’s minimum wage and overtime responsibilities. Jan-Pro contracts with franchises of “master owners,” which in turn contracts with “unit franchisees.” Master owners themselves do not clean but instead engage in various managerial or administrative duties; unit franchisees clean. The plaintiffs, janitorial workers at unit franchisees, alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors.

The case had a tortured procedural history with over a decade of litigation, dispositive decisions, and appeals in federal and state courts in California, Georgia, and Massachusetts. In the Ninth Circuit, Jan-Pro argued that a judicial ruling in Georgia had already decided the issue, thereby conclusively resolving the Ninth Circuit case as well under the doctrine of res judicata. Regardless, Jan-Pro argued, the Dynamex decision should not apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided in 2018.

The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. The Court disposed of the res judicata arguments on grounds specific to the procedural history of the litigation. In brief, the Court held that the Massachusetts plaintiff was not in privity with the California plaintiffs, nor did he legally represent their interests—the California plaintiffs could not lose their day in court simply because of a similar case involving someone else on the east coast.

Next the Court addressed the important issue at stake for California workers: whether the Dynamex decision applied retroactively. The answer was a resounding “yes.” California’s judicial decisions traditionally apply retroactively, even when overruling past precedent. The Court adhered to this traditional rule, drawing further support from other California courts’ retroactive application of the Dynamex decision and the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of a petition to modify Dynamex to clarify that it was prospective only. Notably, despite its considerable impact on the lives of workers and employment law practice, the Dynamex decision did not create new law but instead hewed close to the fundamental purpose of existing California law. Because the lower court had dismissed the workers’ claims on summary judgment before Dynamex was decided, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a decision in light of Dynamex.

If you believe you are misclassified as an independent contractor and should enjoy the same rights as an employee, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

On-Call Scheduling Practice Ruled a Violation of Employees’ Rights

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeals for California’s Second District ruled in favor of retail employees in an important decision about on-call work time in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., Case No. B280151. This decision is a major victory for on-call employees who have to set aside time for shifts they might not get to work. You can find the opinion here.

The employer, Tilly’s, a clothing and accessories retailer, required their employees to call two hours ahead of some shifts to find out if they were actually needed. These on-call shifts had concrete start and end times, and Tilly’s instructed its employees to plan as if they were definitely going to work the shifts. Some on-call shifts were scheduled immediately after an employee’s regular shift, in which case the employee would learn whether she was needed during her regular shift. Although Tilly’s could reprimand or even fire employees for failing to call in before their on-call shifts, they were not paid for any on-call shifts they did not work, nor were they paid for the two hours between calling in and the start of the on-call shift.

A scheduling scheme like Tilly’s puts workers, especially low-wage workers, in a tough spot. An employee scheduled for a potential shift has to plan her day as if she will work the shift, despite not having the guarantee of compensation. This stressful arrangement means setting up child care or care for aging relatives, pursuing additional employment, rearranging health care appointments and education schedules, or foregoing sleep, personal hygiene, or leisure, even though an employee may not know whether she will be called in to work until just two hours before her potential shift. In essence, Tilly’s required their employees to block out their time for work without the assurance of being paid.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Tilly’s, challenging this scheduling practice. Tilly’s argued that the lawsuit did not state a cause of action—that everything the employee said Tilly’s did, in Tilly’s view, was legal. The Superior Court in Los Angeles agreed and threw out the case.

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Tilly’s on-call scheduling scheme violated the law, specifically Wage Order 7 (Spanish) (Chinese). The Industrial Welfare Commission has issued 17 Wage Orders, including Wage Order 7, to regulate wages and work conditions for California workers. Wage Order 7 requires employers to pay employees for “[e]ach workday an employee is required to report for work, but is not put to work . . . .” Wage Order 7-2001 (8 Cal. Code Regs § 11070). Tilly’s argued that the phrase “report to work” requires an employee’s physical presence at the workplace when a shift starts.

Not so, said the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals drew attention to the unbalanced burdens that Tilly’s on-call scheduling scheme placed on its workers. The scheme benefited Tilly’s immensely: “This permits employers to keep their labors costs low when business is slow, while having workers at the ready when business picks up. It thus creates no incentive for employers to competently anticipate their labor needs and to schedule accordingly.” Ward, Case No. B280151, at *22. In contrast, the scheme “impose[d] tremendous costs on employees. . . . [O]n-call shifts significantly limit employees’ ability to earn income, pursue an education, care for dependent family members, and enjoy recreation time.” Id. at *22. These burdens affect employees not just during their on-call potential shifts, but for the two hours between the phone call and the shift itself. Id. at 22-23. The Court of Appeals held that Wage Order 7 was designed to prevent unfair scheduling practices such as this, and determined that the phrase “report for work” included the act of calling in. Id. at 23, 25. The wage orders covering workers in other industries use the phrase “report to work” in the same way as Wage Order 7.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals pronounced that “if the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by logging on to a computer remotely, or by appearing at a client’s job site, or by setting out on a trucking route, then the employee ‘reports for work’ by doing those things. And if . . . the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by telephoning the store two hours prior to the start of a shift, then the reporting time requirement is triggered by the telephonic contact.” Id. at 25-26. This conclusion is similar to a California Supreme Court decision that an employer cannot require its employees to keep their pagers and phones on to remain on-call during their rest breaks, which Bryan Schwartz has blogged about before. See Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257, 269 (2017).

If your employer has asked you to call in before scheduled shifts to determine if you are needed to work, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law today. Click here for more information about Bryan Schwartz Law.

Ignorance of the Law is no Excuse

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” particularly when it comes to an employer’s responsibility to pay its workers according to current wage laws. That’s the upshot from the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 859 (2018).

In Diaz, the employer claimed its failure to pay timely its workers was not “willful” – an element of proof for a waiting time penalty claim under Labor Code § 203 – because the employer was purportedly unable “to locate” an amendment to a local Los Angeles ordinance. This amendment to the local wage law required employers to pay certain hotel workers a specific living wage which exceeded the state minimum wage law. The court was unpersuaded.

The court explained several circumstances under which an employer’s failure to pay all wages due upon termination or resignation are not “willful,” including: (1) uncertainty in the law, (2) representations from a taxing authority that no further payment is warranted, and (3) “the employer’s ‘good faith mistaken belief that wages are not owed’ grounded in a ‘good faith dispute,’ which exists when the ‘employer presents a defense, based in law or fact which, if successful, would preclude any recovery on the part of the employee.” Id. at 868. None applied in this case.

To the contrary, the “undisputed facts show that Grill Concepts suspected it was underpaying its employees and went so far as to confirm that the living wage law was in the midst of being amended, but then did nothing else.” Id. at 869. The employer just kept running the same web search which failed to produce information about the amended statute. Id. Because the employer ignored multiple, obvious ways to inform itself of a change in the living wage law, the court affirmed that the employer’s “inability to locate the amended ordinance does not preclude the finding that its failure to pay was willful” for purposes of establishing Labor Code § 203 waiting time penalty liability. Id. [1]

While it should not have taken a court of appeal to state the obvious, nevertheless, workers and workers’ advocates should find comfort in knowing that California courts will not allow an employer to bury its head in the sand to avoid properly paying its workers.

If your employer refuses to pay you earned wages because it claims not to know the law, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law for a free case evaluation to determine if we can assist you.

---

[1] The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the amended statute was unconstitutionally vague, in part because of “the absence of any evidence that any other hotelier or restauranteur had any problem reading the ordinance to pay its employees the proper living wage.” Id. at 873. In addition, the court rejected the employer’s misreading of Labor Code § 203 as purportedly allowing a trial court to waive waiting time penalties “for equitable reasons” when the relevant statutory language lacks any such discretionary authority and instead includes language mandating the imposition of such penalties upon a finding of willful violation, as was the case here. Id. at 874-75.