What is the Workers & Independent Contractors bill (AB 5)?

Useful Rulings on Workers & Independent Contractors – Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)

Recent Rulings on Workers & Independent Contractors – Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)

LOUIS LOZANO, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Because Petitioners’ discharge concerns a fundamental vested right, the court exercises its independent judgment on the record. (See Wences v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 305, 314; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143.) Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law, but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” (Bixby, supra, at p. 143.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (ACE) VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Petitioner, the Foothill-De Anza Association of Classified Employees, filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief asking the court to require Respondent, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), to find that a 2018-2019 negotiated five percent salary increase will be pensionable The real party in interest is the Foothill De Anza Community College District that employs Petitioner’s members.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BRAD ELLIS VS PEET'S OPERATING COMPANY

Third, it remains to be determined by the trier of fact as to whether Plaintiff was improperly classified as an independent contractor. Fourth, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Plaintiffs fail to cite to any specific provisions in the arbitration agreement that are substantively unconscionable. The action is stayed pending arbitration as to causes of action 1-10. The arbitration shall be completed by July 9, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED

Because District did not tell Ochoa that he was classified as temporary, Ochoa believed that he was classified as probationary for the 2012-13 school year. Ochoa Decl. ¶3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, INC. VS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Lopez was competent to render an opinion and the Division established a rebuttable presumption that Citation 2 was properly classified as serious. AR 622. NRT knew, or should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the hazard caused by falling boxes. NRT knew that its employees did not have foot protection. AR 623. It did not take steps to protect employees from this hazard. Therefore, NRT failed to rebut the serious classification. AR 623.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.

“An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NEEBLE-DIAMOND V. HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC

Plaintiff further contends that, by each of categories at issue, Defendant is attempting to discover whether she was classified as an employee or independent contractor by the deponent, and that this information has no bearing on whether or not she was properly classified as an independent contractor while she worked for Defendant. Lastly, Plaintiff contends this information could be discovered by less intrusive means, such as taking her deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ESTRADA VS. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

In support of the Unpaid Wages/Overtime claim, plaintiff’s PAGA letter asserted: “During the time Estrada was classified as a nonexempt employee, he was required by AAA, once a week, every five weeks, to be “on-call” 24 hours a day. During these on-call weeks, Mr. Estrada always received service calls, often in the middle of the night, and AAA required that he immediately return the call and be available to return [to] the AAA office within a 15 minute time period.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1902, AFL-CIO, ET AL. VS FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

After the probationary period, employees are classified as full-time regular, part-time regular hourly, or temporary. The definitions of each of these employee classifications states that the employees “are employed on an at-will basis and may be terminated from FMWD, with or without cause.” (Id. Exh. D at 180-81.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GLOBAL SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STONER GABLE

Gable alleges that on or about November 2015, Cross-Defendants represented to him that he was properly classified as an exempt employee under governing labor laws because he served as the Director of Truckload Operations. (SAXC ¶ 21.) Gable alleges that this representation was false because he performed no managerial functions and alleges that Cross-Defendants gave this misrepresentation in order to avoid paying him overtime wages. (SAXC ¶¶ 23-24.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

REBECCA WU VS. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent concludes that because the petition so admits, there is no allegation that TRUE erroneously construed an applicable statute as the law requires TRUE to represent each employee in the bargaining unit, and as an employee classified as a substitute, Petitioner was not part of the subject bargaining unit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

REBECCA WU VS. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent concludes that because the petition so admits, there is no allegation that TRUE erroneously construed an applicable statute as the law requires TRUE to represent each employee in the bargaining unit, and as an employee classified as a substitute, Petitioner was not part of the subject bargaining unit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

This provides an independent reason to deny summary adjudication of the equal protection violation claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

This provides an independent reason to deny summary adjudication of the equal protection violation claim.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ONTIVEROS V. BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Factual and Procedural Background As alleged in the operative complaint, Baker is a concrete construction contractor in the residential, industrial, and commercial markets. (First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was employed by Baker in California from July 2016 to January 2018 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. (Id., ¶ 3.) He alleges that, as a result of their rigorous work schedules, he and other employees were unable to take required meal and rest periods. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL.

They classified plaintiffs as independent contractors and caused them to sign “independent contractor” agreements through coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Lam and Lee set work hours, weekly schedules, pay rates, and pay schedules for plaintiffs, selected their work locations, and required them to perform services on the business premises and to remain there during work hours even if no patrons came in. (Id. at ¶ 33.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

FLORES V. SANTA BARBARA FARMS

While the court “must stop short of the detailed and thorough investigation that it would undertake if it were actually trying the case,” it must eschew any rubber stamp approval in favor of an independent evaluation. (Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at pp. 407–08.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

These layoff provisions are similar, but not identical, to those in Section 45308(a), which governs employees in classified service: Classified employees shall be subject to layoff for lack of work or lack of funds. If a classified employee is laid off, the order of layoff within the class shall be determined by length of service. The employee who has been employed the shortest time in the class, plus higher classes, shall be laid off first.

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

These layoff provisions are similar, but not identical, to those in Section 45308(a), which governs employees in classified service: Classified employees shall be subject to layoff for lack of work or lack of funds. If a classified employee is laid off, the order of layoff within the class shall be determined by length of service. The employee who has been employed the shortest time in the class, plus higher classes, shall be laid off first.

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REY VS URBAN STREET ANGELS INC

Border Transportation: "'Dynamex did not purport to replace the Borello standard in every instance where a worker must be classified as either an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of enforcing California's labor protections." (California Trucking Assn. v. Su (9th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 953, 959, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHOKOUFEH AZIMA V. CSI MEDICAL GROUP, ET AL.

Proposed Settlement Class Plaintiff requests that the following settlement class be provisionally certified: All individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant who worked in California and who were classified as non-exempt during the Class Period [(March 29, 2015 to October 29, 2019)]. A.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

TIOFILO VEGA VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

On September 21, 2018, Vega’s former counsel sent correspondence to Rosado arguing that Vega had been employed by HACLA full-time, i.e., 40 hours per week, for his entire employment regardless of whether he was classified as a per diem employee or permanent employee. Rosado Decl. ¶6, Ex.4. On October 2, 2018, Annie Markarian, HACLA’s Director of Labor and Employee Relations (“Markarian”), responded that as a Per Diem Carpenter, Vega’s employment status was considered temporary on an as-needed basis.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.