Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 1/3 | 04/30/2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Filed 4/30/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA .        DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC. , Petitioner, .        v. .        THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; .        CHARLES LEE et al. , Real Parties in Interest. .       Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed. .       Dynamex is a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service that operates a number of business centers in California. .       Drivers are generally free to set their own schedule but must notify Dynamex of the days they intend to work for Dynamex. .       Drivers hired by Dynamex are permitted to hire other persons to make deliveries assigned by Dynamex. | ||
| Note: | California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy. | ||
| Citation: | S222732 | ||
| WCC Citation: | Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super | ||
| Case Name: | Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 2/3 | 04/30/2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | . Â Â Â Â Â Â In addressing these largely unexplored issues, the Martinez court turned initially to the language and legislative history of section 1194. . Â Â Â Â Â Â The court in Martinez then considered how the IWC, utilizing its broad legislative authority (see Cal. The court explained in this regard: âThe verbs âto sufferâ and âto permit,â as we have seen, are terms of art in employment law. . Â Â Â Â Â Â The Martinez court summarized its conclusion on this point as follows: âTo employ, then, under the IWCâs definition, has three alternative definitions. 74-77), the court concluded that the record did not indicate âthe field representatives ever supervised or exercised control over [Munozâs] employeesâ (id. | ||
| Note: | California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy. | ||
| Citation: | S222732 | ||
| WCC Citation: | Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super | ||
| Case Name: | Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Part 3/3 | 04/30/2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | (See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal. 4th at p. 1032 [class certification is not an abuse of discretion if certification is proper under any theory]. )Here the class of drivers certified by the trial court is limited to drivers who, during the relevant time periods, performed delivery services only for Dynamex. V. CONCLUSION . Â Â Â Â Â For the reasons discussed above, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 319, 326; Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 429, 435-436. )Defendant is only liable to those drivers with whom it entered into an agreement (i. e. , knew were providing delivery services to Dynamex customers). | ||
| Note: | California’s Supreme Court on Monday laid down a simple, three-part test to determine whether a person is an employee of an independent contractor, in a ruling that could have implications for workers’ compensation and the gig economy. | ||
| Citation: | S222732 | ||
| WCC Citation: | Ct.App. 2/7 B249546, Los Angeles County Super | ||
