California Supreme Court Decision Adopts New Independent Contractor Test
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.22.18
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, issued on April 30, 2018, has changed California’s test for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors. It adopts a standard which presumes that all workers are employees, and announces a new “ABC test” which a business must pass to classify a worker as an independent contractor. The burden is now squarely on businesses to establish that classification as an independent contractor is proper and justified.
Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee unless the putative employer proves that the worker:
- Is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
- Performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
- Is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Prong B will prove particularly challenging for any company that engages independent contractors to provide goods or services in line with its “usual course” of business. Furthermore, this prong may require courts to grapple with determining what a company’s “usual course” of business is as a threshold question.
It remains unclear whether this new test applies only for the purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission, or to all wage claims, even those not arising under a wage order – e.g., claims for reimbursement for business expenses.
The Dynamex decision will have far-reaching effects on businesses across California, especially in those “gig economy” industries which rely on part-time, off-site workers to support a business’s core mission. Two exemplar lawsuits, against Lyft and Postmates, are already on file; more will almost certainly follow.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
