Worker classification in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court
Calling a worker an independent contractor did not settle the question in this California wage case. The court used California’s ABC test, a three-part worker-classification rule, to decide whether drivers were covered by the wage order. That rule does not automatically answer every workers’ compensation or insurance question, which depends on the applicable law and facts.
Record details
| Record | Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, S222732 (Cal. 2018) |
|---|---|
| Type | Court decision |
| Status | Final public record |
| Jurisdiction | California |
| Forum | Supreme Court of California |
| Docket or order number | S222732 |
| Decision date | |
| Official record | Read the public record |
What the public record says
Dynamex Operations West changed its delivery drivers from employees to independent contractors. Two drivers brought a class action alleging wage-order and related violations from that classification. The California Supreme Court considered the standard for deciding employee status under the wage order that governed the transportation industry.
The court held that the “suffer or permit to work” definition could be used and that the ABC test was appropriate for deciding whether a worker was the type of independent contractor to whom that wage order did not apply. It affirmed the class-certification order on that understanding of the wage-order standard.
Disposition
The California Supreme Court affirmed on April 30, 2018. The official appellate case page reports the case as closed with remittitur issued. This case file reports that final public record only.
What it does—and does not—answer for coverage
The case is often cited whenever a business calls a worker a contractor, but the decision before the court concerned California wage orders. It did not make every contractor an employee for every insurance or workers’ compensation question. For a workers’ compensation decision, begin with the controlling state statute, any applicable exception, and the actual working relationship; then preserve contracts, schedules, payment records, and supervisory facts that show how the work is performed.
Sources
- Primary source: Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court — Official published California Supreme Court opinion.
- Primary source: California Courts appellate case information — S222732 — Official case-status page reporting the closed case and remittitur issued.