AB 5: Changing the Landscape for Independent Contractor Analysis
Although the national media has largely focused on the effects on ride-hailing, meal delivery and other gig economy workers, the effects of AB 5 are much broader and are worrying those in many industries including technology, media, transportation and entertainment.
September 19, 2019 at 04:10 PM
6 minute read
On Sept. 19, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), a sweeping new law that makes it significantly more difficult for most workers in the state to qualify as independent contractors. With the governor's approval, the California Legislature has once again enacted a law that imposes significant changes on companies without providing much of a roadmap for compliance. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020.
Although the national media has largely focused on the effects on ride-hailing, meal delivery and other gig economy workers, the effects of AB 5 are much broader and are worrying those in many industries including technology, media, transportation and entertainment.
What AB 5 Does
AB 5 codifies the Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex) case, decided by the California Supreme Court in April 2018. In that case, the court abandoned the 20-year-old test for independent contractors set forth in Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations (Borello). The Borello test considered many factors related to the amount of control an employer exerted over a purported independent contractor, none of which was determinative on its own.
In, Dynamex, the court embraced a standard that presumes workers are employees rather than independent contractors, unless the hiring entity can show that the workers meet all three prongs of the so-called "ABC test," and thus can qualify for independent contractor status. The "ABC" requirements are that:
(A) The hiring entity does not control or direct the performance of work;
(B) The person performs work 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.
If the hiring entity cannot meet the ABC test, the worker is considered an employee and thus may be eligible for a slew of rights and benefits previously unavailable to them, including minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal and rest breaks, among other protections under the Labor Code; employee benefits such as health benefits, stock options and 401k; coverage under the employer's workers' compensation, unemployment and disability insurance; and eligibility for paid sick days and paid family leave.
Who Is Exempt From AB 5 and What Does That Mean?
AB 5 contains exemptions for a wide variety of professions, including certain health and other licensed professionals, broker-dealers, direct salespeople and commercial fishermen.
It is important to note, however, that exempt occupations are not automatically "safe" in their independent contractor status. Rather, workers in exempt occupations get the benefit of using the more lenient Borello standard instead of the Dynamex ABC test.
AB 5 also includes a list of additional exemptions that have their own factors which must be established in order for the ABC test not to apply (presumably in addition to meeting the test under Borello). By way of example, AB 5 exempts workers in enumerated "professional services," if the hiring entity can demonstrate that it meets all of the following factors:
- The individual maintains a business location separate from the hiring entity;
- The individual has a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession (provided such work occurs six months after Jan. 1, 2020);
- The individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed;
- Outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual's own hours;
- The individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work; and
- The individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services.
The "professional services" exemption includes a host of jobs and industries—which themselves are subject to exceptions—including, in broad terms, marketer, human resource administrator, graphic designer, grant writer, fine artist, photojournalist, freelance writer, editor or newspaper cartoonist, licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber and licensed cosmetologist. As noted above, there are additional exemptions subject to their own list of factors, including for businesses that are formed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation; some construction industry occupations; and "the relationship between a referral agency and a service provider" (where a "referral agency" is a business that connects clients with service providers that provide graphic design, photography, tutoring, event planning, minor home repair, moving, home cleaning, errands, furniture assembly, animal services, dog walking, dog grooming, web design, picture hanging, pool cleaning or yard cleanup).
Notably absent from all the enumerated exemptions are workers from the entertainment, ridesharing/delivery and trucking industries, among others.
Further, AB 5 allows courts to apply the more flexible Borello test "based on grounds other than an express exception to employment status." That test is centered on the hiring entity's control over the work at issue, including the manner in which is performed. But the bill provides no guidance on when such application would be appropriate, and thus potentially opens the door for litigation in the face of what may otherwise appear to be a law that aims to provide clarity.
Without question, AB 5 changes the landscape for companies that utilize independent contractors in California. But it also opens the door to misinterpretation, uncertainty and further litigation. Thus, the quick takeaways for employers are as follows:
- No position or industry in California is statutorily authorized to use independent contractors—thus every hiring entity must continue to review its classification. The only question is, which test applies?
- Even though AB 5 has now been signed into law, there is reason to believe that the law is still in flux. For example, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 170 (AB 170) on Sept. 14, giving newspaper publishers until Jan. 1, 2021, to reclassify their delivery drivers from contractors to employees. Many believe this recent bill, which is considered a companion piece to AB 5, demonstrates that the full reach of AB 5 has not been finalized just yet, as many industries continue to push for more exemptions through more companion bills or emergency legislation.
- AB 5 is not likely to provide the clarity it purports to bring: several of the exemptions are unclear; the judicial mandate for circumventing the application of Dynamex will undoubtedly generate litigation; and several industries have openly vowed to challenge the bill through ballot initiatives.
Galit A. Knotz is counsel and Katherine A. Roberts is a partner in Sidley Austin's Los Angeles office. They are labor and employment litigators and counselors whose practices focus on class and representative actions including PAGA, wage-and-hour issues, discrimination and traditional labor matters arising under the National Labor Relations Act.
|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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
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