As we recently wrote here, just hours before California’s controversial AB 5 went into effect, a federal court in San Diego issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin enforcement of the independent contractor statute as to approximately 70,000 independent truckers, many of whom have invested substantial sums of money to purchase their own
Following the challenges to AB 5, California’s controversial new independent contractor law, can be a difficult endeavor. Every day seems to bring a new development.
We have written before about the hasty passage of the statute, about a ballot initiative to escape the scope of the law by ride-share and delivery companies, and
As we wrote here recently, organizations representing freelance journalists and photographers filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of California’s controversial independent contractor statute, AB 5, as to them.
While they are not the only ones challenging the new law, their suit is not off to a promising start.
While a federal judge issued a
On January 1, 2020, California’s new independent contractor statute, known as AB 5, went into effect. The law codifies the use of an “ABC” test to determine if an individual may be classified as an independent contractor.
The hastily passed and controversial statute has been challenged by a number of groups as being unconstitutional
AB 5, California’s hastily passed and controversial independent contractor statute, which codifies the use of an “ABC test,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2020.
Already, the California Trucking Association has filed suit challenging the statute.
As have freelance writers and photographers.
Now, it’s ride-share and delivery companies’ turn to
On April 29, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter concluding that workers providing services to customers referred to them through an unidentified virtual marketplace are properly classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Although the opinion letter is not “binding” authority, the DOL’s guidance should provide
On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, a case concerning the enforceability of arbitration agreements.
Petitioner New Prime Inc. (“New Prime”) is an interstate trucking company that engaged Dominic Oliveira to perform work as a driver pursuant to an “Independent Contractor Operating Agreement,”
In April 2018, we wrote about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which had clarified the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified as employees or as independent contractors for purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”).
In Dynamex
In a move likely to impact employers in a variety of industries, U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced on June 7, 2017 that the Department of Labor has withdrawn the Administrator’s Interpretations (“AIs”) on independent contractor status and joint employment, which had been issued in 2015 and 2016, respectively, during the tenure of former
On January 14, 2015, in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s LLC, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Third Circuit and held that the “ABC” test governs whether a plaintiff is an employee or an independent contractor under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.