The legal landscape surrounding independent contractor relationships in California continues to evolve swiftly.

As we wrote here, in January 2020, state court Judge William Highberger issued a decision holding that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts use of California’s version of the “ABC” test (as adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, and subsequently codified in AB 5) to differentiate between independent contractors and employees in the trucking industry.  More specifically, Judge Highberger held that “b]ecause Prong B of the ABC Test … prohibits motor carriers from using independent contractors to provide transportation services, the ABC Test has an impermissible effect on motor carriers’ ‘price[s], route[s], [and] service[s]’ and is preempted by the FAAAA.”

Only weeks later, in a separate matter in federal court, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the State of California from enforcing AB 5 against the trucking industry, concluding that the plaintiffs in that case had met their burden to show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits with respect to their preemption claim.

The California Court of Appeal has now weighed in.  On November 19, 2020, the Court reversed Judge Highberger’s decision and held that the FAAAA does not preempt application of the “ABC” test in the trucking industry.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court reasoned that the “ABC test is a law of general application,” and it “does not mandate the use of employees for any business or hiring entity.”

The Court of Appeal likely will not have the last word on this issue.  At least some of the trucking businesses involved in the case reportedly plan to seek review from the California Supreme Court.

In addition, Judge Benitez’s preliminary injunction ruling is pending on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.  And even the Ninth Circuit’s anticipated decision may not finally resolve the matter, as the issue could ultimately reach the United States Supreme Court.

Back to Wage and Hour Defense Blog Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Wage and Hour Defense Blog posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.