California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships

20 September 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Peter Lawrence Loh Kamran Mirrafati Krista M. Cabrera

On September 18, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new measure — Assembly Bill 5 — which will redefine how businesses classify their workers. Commonly known as “AB 5,” the new law seeks to codify the “ABC Test” for determining the existence of an employer/employee relationship. Simply put, the bill will make it much more difficult for businesses to utilize workers as independent contractors. The law will take effect on January 1, 2020, and will require many businesses, especially those in the so-called “gig economy,” to restructure their operations or transform workers into employees. The law contains no exceptions for franchisor/franchisee relationships and could potentially require reassessment of many such arrangements.

How Did AB 5 Come to Be?

As we have previously reported, in April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, which under certain circumstances eliminated a previous, more flexible multifactor inquiry for determining whether independent contractors were properly classified. For claims under the California Wage Orders, Dynamex instead adopted the ABC Test, which states that a worker is now considered an employee unless the alleged employer can satisfy all three of the following:

  1. The alleged worker is free from the control and directions of the alleged employer in connection with the work performed, both under the relevant contract for the work at issue and in fact;
  2. The alleged worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  3. The alleged worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the alleged employer. 

Dynamex left unanswered questions about its applicability to other state laws and whether the enforcement agencies could apply it retroactively. So, workers’ advocates and organized labor moved in aggressively to get the legislature to codify Dynamex and the ABC Test as the undisputed law of the state. In May 2019, the California State Assembly passed AB 5. The assembly’s Republican members, the California Chamber of Commerce, and gig economy companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash opposed, yet in August 2019 the California State Senate approved the bill, and on September 11 the full assembly passed the final version of the bill.

The Far-Reaching Impact of AB 5

The impetus for AB 5, Dynamex, only applied to California’s Wage Orders and, thus, was relatively limited in scope to minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest break rules. AB 5, however, reaches further, subjecting alleged employers to liability for workers’ compensation coverage, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, family leave, and other benefits. Further, workers who were formerly independent contractors (and certain franchisees) may now seek protection under the state’s antidiscrimination and harassment laws, and organize themselves into unions.

The final bill became somewhat of a demonstration of which industries had the most lobbying muscle and were best able to obtain exemptions from AB 5. Examples of those fortunate to obtain at least limited carve-outs are listed below:

  • Physicians, dentists, podiatrists, and veterinarians;
  • Lawyers, architects, engineers, and accountants;
  • Securities broker-dealers and investment advisors;
  • Licensed real estate salespersons, repossession agents, estheticians, electrologists, manicurists, barbers, and cosmetologists;
  • Certain construction subcontractors and motor club service providers; 
  • Travel agents, HR administrators, marketing contractors, grant writers, fine artists, payment processing agents, freelance writers, cartoonists, and editors who are able to meet certain other requirements outlined in the bill; and
  • Referral agencies connecting clients with those providing services in graphic design, photography, tutoring, event planning, minor home repair, home cleaning, moving, errands, furniture assembly, animal services, dog walking and grooming, web design, picture hanging, pool cleaning, or yard cleanup also able to meet certain other requirements outlined in the bill. 

Importantly, businesses that hire other businesses (i.e., vendors) are also in danger of liability under AB 5. A vendor’s employees could claim they are also the employees of the “contracting business,” under the bill’s definition, unless the contracting business can satisfy 12 requirements in the statute. Some of these requirements include 1) proof that the vendor provides the similar or same services to other clients, 2) the vendor providing its services directly to the contracting business and not its customers, and 3) the vendor advertising to the public. Finally, at least two courts have held that Dynamex’s ABC Test is retroactive, going back four years, while certain aspects of AB 5 are too. 

Businesses face difficult decisions in the coming days, ahead of January 1. Should they reconfigure their operations in order to avoid liability under AB 5? Should they proceed with reclassifying their independent contractors as employees? Either choice presents a host of legal and technical issues that are best addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

Please consult a Foley & Lardner LLP attorney so that we may assist with this important analysis and decision-making process.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights