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 | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25



