United States: The New ABCs Of Worker Classification In California

Last Updated: August 10 2018
Article by David B. Monks

In a groundbreaking decision on April 30, the California Supreme Court adopted a new legal standard that makes it much more difficult for businesses to classify California workers as independent contractors.

The decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court will directly affect the trucking and transportation industry because the workers involved in the case were delivery drivers, but it will also likely affect nearly every other industry that has relied to some degree on independent contractors – including hospitals and physicians.

New Test for an Old Problem

The dichotomy between employees and independent contractors is well known. For example, if a worker is an employee, the law imposes specified obligations on the business employing the worker, such as providing workers' compensation insurance, withholding taxes from wages and complying with wage-and-hour laws. Independent contractors, on the other hand, are effectively treated as separate business entities, and companies utilizing their services are relieved of most of these kinds of obligations.

In Dynamex, the state's highest court adopted a new standard for determining whether a company "employs" or is the "employer" of a worker for purposes of the California Wage Orders, which govern minimum wage, overtime, days of rest, meal and rest periods, and similar employment obligations. Casting aside the balancing test that had governed the independent contractor versus employee analysis in California for over 30 years, the court announced a stricter standard in which a worker is considered to be an employee under the Wage Orders unless the hiring entity establishes all of the following:

(A) The worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

(B) The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and

(C) The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

Importantly, it is the hiring entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor that now bears the burden of establishing that such a classification is proper under the "ABC test," by proving each of these three factors.

Over 20 states use the ABC test in some form, although for most of them, the test has been used for only a particular inquiry, most commonly determination of eligibility for unemployment benefits. In California, the court specifically stated that the ABC test was being applied broadly for inquiries under the California Wage Orders as to whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. The Wage Orders regulate the terms and conditions of employees in all industries and occupations. Thus, the test has far reaching consequences, although some areas remain unsettled, such as whether the ABC test could be applied to Labor Code claims not arising under a Wage Order (e.g., section 2802 (reimbursement of expenses)) or to what extent state or local federal courts could find that an element of the test is preempted by federal law.

ABC Test: Easy as 1-2-3?

The California Supreme Court seems to think so. The test is indeed simple to apply. But it's difficult to "win" if the goal is proper classification of a worker as independent contractor. Prong A of the new test is akin to the common law control standard that employers are likely familiar with. Due to the prevalence of decisions finding "control" under the old test, it is foreseeable that many businesses will suffer losses due to misclassification under factor A. The fact that some workers request, or require, a 1099 arrangement generally will not help much if the other facts do not support independent contractor status. And one issue impacting this factor is whether the worker treated as an independent contractor is also the same individual doing the work, a circumstance that the Dynamex court cautioned is an example of where control is implicit.

Prong B examines whether workers can reasonably be viewed as providing services in a role comparable to that of an employee, rather than in a role comparable to that of an independent contractor. The court used the example of a retailer that hires a plumber or electrician to perform maintenance at its establishment; such a worker would not be employed in the usual course of the retailer's business, indicating independent contractor status. Conversely, a clothing manufacturer that hires a work-at-home seamstress, or a bakery hiring a cake decorator, typically would not meet the standard. This prong expands those within the definition of employee to include almost any worker who is engaged in the same business as the hiring entity. Many employers will face serious challenges with this factor, and succeeding on this factor will not guarantee success on the other factors.

Finally, Prong C seeks to identify those workers who have taken steps to create their own independent business. The good news: the court stated that a business does not necessarily have to prove that the workers in question took steps such as incorporation, licensure, advertising, and the like. The bad news: the court also stated that the simple fact that a company does not prohibit or prevent a worker from engaging in such an independent business is, by itself, insufficient to establish that a worker has independently made the decision to go into business for himself or herself.

Re-evaluating Hospitals' Use of Physicians as Independent Contractors

Just as many businesses have service workers who request to be paid as 1099 independent contractors, hospitals commonly engage physicians as independent contractors. Among the reasons that such physicians request or accept independent contractor status are avoiding income taxes, enjoying other tax relief benefits, having schedule flexibility, and wanting "to be their own boss." But these preferences may seemingly be irrelevant if the ABC test is not met. In Dynamex, the court maintained that the public interest in social welfare does not always jive with the personal interests of workers and that, in the end, the intent of public policy in protecting workers is a central consideration in determining employee versus independent contractor status. So, a worker's request to be an independent contractor, standing alone, will not tip the scales in an employer's favor.

The most challenging obstacle for a hospital's ability to use a physician as an independent contractor will likely be Prong B – Does the doctor perform work that is outside the usual course of the hospital's business? Stated broadly, hospitals provide medical services. If the physician provides medical services on behalf of the hospital, it appears that Prong B is not met. But what if a doctor provides a kind of medical service that the hospital does not commonly provide? It's not clear whether that fact makes a difference.

An easier analysis applies to a doctor who provides non-medical services to a hospital, perhaps some kind of administrative or peer review services. The stronger argument there is that Prong B is satisfied.

What options does a hospital have? It can make the physician a part-time or full-time W-2 employee. That decision, of course, brings numerous burdens and responsibilities: complying with timekeeping requirements; deducting state and federal payroll taxes; providing worker's compensation insurance; protecting against unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; paying minimum wage and, when applicable, overtime wages; ensuring opportunities, when applicable, for meal and rest breaks; giving notice of various workplace rights; and providing paid sick leave benefits.

Another option is to proceed with classifying the physician as an independent contractor. Obviously, the ABC test creates a greater risk that the classification decision was wrong if it's ever challenged. But isn't that an issue to consider? How likely is it that a certain physician will contact a state agency, or file a lawsuit, based on the contention that the hospital misclassified them? A hospital may consider that likelihood to be extremely small, if not remote. In light of the difficult-to-win ABC test, however, rolling the dice may be too risky. That risk is especially sharp if the hospital uses a large number of similarly situated physicians as independent contractors. For many California employers, a damaging wage-and-hour class action is only one misclassified worker away.

Does Dynamex Apply Retroactively?

There is yet another reason for employers' concern: the issue of whether the Dynamex decision applies retroactively. This issue could mean the difference between catastrophic liability and merely a correction going forward, as needed. Employers maintain that the decision -- with its new mandatory test replacing older tests that balanced multiple elements -- should not apply to employers retroactively because doing so would violate due process. On the other hand, employee advocates contend that the decision merely clarified existing law and therefore should apply retroactively. This issue is before the California Supreme Court, which hopefully will soon provide guidance.

Act Now

Regardless of the outcome on the retroactivity question, employers would be wise to carefully evaluate their independent contractor relationships with legal counsel to avoid liability going forward. The Dynamex decision imposes an affirmative, substantial burden on companies to prove that independent contractors are being properly classified. If that burden cannot be met, substantial exposure might result. As a result of this decision, all hospitals and other medical-services businesses utilizing independent contractors in California should conduct a thorough evaluation of such workers to determine whether they are properly classified. Employers will need to discuss these factors as they relate to their business, and there is good reason to be very careful with regard to engaging any independent contractors going forward, especially workers who are working as single individuals rather than companies that have retained a force of workers in an independent business.

Originally published by Becker's Hospital Review

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions