U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)9th Circuit Asks Calif. Supreme Court to Weigh In on Whether 'Dynamex' Applies Retroactively
A Ninth Circuit panel withdrew a May opinion that held "the strong presumption of retroactivity" weighed in favor of finding that the California high court's test for when workers are employees applied to past instances of worker misclassification.
July 22, 2019 at 06:59 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Should the labor-friendly standard for when workers should be classified as employees laid out last year by the California Supreme Court apply retroactively?
Turns out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit thinks that's a question the California Supreme Court itself should decide.
A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday asked California's high court to weigh in on whether its Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court decision from last April applies in a case brought by janitorial workers pursuing claims against Jan-Pro International Franchising Inc. The janitors claim they were misclassified as independent contractors and, therefore, underpaid.
The panel had previously held in May that “the strong presumption of retroactivity” weighed in favor of finding that the so-called ABC test outlined in Dynamex for when workers are employees applied to past instances of worker misclassification.
But Jan-Pro's lawyer, including Jeffrey Rosin of O'Hagan Meyer in Boston and lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who joined the company's appellate team after the initial panel ruling, persuaded the Ninth Circuit on Monday to grant the company's motion for a panel rehearing and to withdraw the prior opinion. “A revised disposition and an order certifying to the California Supreme Court the question of whether Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), applies retroactively will be filed in due course,” Monday's brief, two-paragraph order said.
“We're pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that this case presents important questions of law regarding application of the California Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex and that it intends to ask that court to weigh in,” said Rosin in an email Monday.
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who has represented California-based janitorial workers in their case against Jan-Pro for more than a decade, said in an email Monday that the panel decision was correctly decided, and the California Supreme Court has already rejected an attempt to revise Dynamex to say that it does not apply retroactively.
“So I look forward to the Supreme Court taking on this case and definitively putting this retroactivity question to rest,” Liss-Riordan said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read
New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
