314 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 461 SB 62, 2021 bill amending Labor Code §§ 1174.1, 2670, 2671, 2673, 2673.1, and 2675.5 and adding Labor Code § 2673.2. Labor Code § 2673.1(a) makes “a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor” jointly and severally liable for unpaid compensation, attorney fees, and civil penalties owed to workers down the supply chain. See also Lab. Code § 2671(d) (defining various terms). 462 Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010). 463 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 207 Cal. App. 4th 385 (2012) (reversing a summary judgment that the trial court had granted for Domino’s, the franchisor), rev. granted, No. S204543 (Cal. Oct 10, 2012). 464 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474 (2014). 465 229 Cal. App. 4th 1015 (2014). 466 Id. at 1020. 467 Henderson v. Equilon Enter., LLC, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1111, 1121-25 (2019). 468 Henderson, 40 Cal. App. 5th at 1130 (the “Dynamex … ABC test was adopted to address claims that workers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than covered employees, and was not intended to apply to claims of joint employer liability. The governing standard for determining the existence of a joint employment relationship remains Martinez.). See also Curry v. Equilon Enter., LLC, 23 Cal. App. 5th 289, 314 (2018), which stated: “[T]he Supreme Court’s policy reasons for selecting the `ABC’ test are uniquely relevant to the issue of allegedly misclassified independent contractors.” In the “joint employment context, the alleged employee is already considered an employee of the primary employer; the issue is whether the employee is also an employee of the alleged secondary employer.” Id. Curry reasoned that “the `ABC’ test set forth in Dynamex is directed toward the issue of whether employees were misclassified as independent contractors. Placing the burden on the alleged employer to prove that the worker is not an employee is meant to serve policy goals that are not relevant in the joint employment context.” Id. 469 Salazar v. McDonald’s, Inc., 944 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2019). 470 No. S258191 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2020). 471 Lab. Code § 2810.3. 472 5 Cal. App. 5th 154 (2016), rev. granted, No. S238941 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2016) (agreeing to decide: “Does the aggrieved employee in a lawsuit based on unpaid overtime have viable claims against the outside vendor that performed payroll services under a contract with the employer?”). 473 Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., 190 Cal. App. 4th 1419, 1432 (2010) (affirming summary judgment for payroll company sued as plaintiff’s joint employer with respect to wage and wage-statement claims; payroll company did not control wages or conditions of employment by virtue of performing the “ministerial tasks of calculating pay and tax withholding, and by also issuing paychecks, drawn on its own bank account”). 474 Goonewardene, 5 Cal. App. 5th at 166-71. 475 Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 6 Cal. 5th 817 (2019). 476 Mattei v. Corporate Mgt. Sols., Inc., 52 Cal. App. 5th 116, 127-29 (2020). 477 SB 1402, 2018 bill adding Lab. Code § 2810.4. 478 AB 1565, 2018 bill amending Lab. Code § 218.7. 479 Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc., 21 Cal. App. 5th 773, 784 (2018) (affirming summary judgment for staffing company because it could be held liable only for its own breach of duty, not vicariously liable for the other alleged joint employer’s breach of duty) (disapproved of on other grounds by Donohue v. AMN Servs., LLC, 21 Cal. App. 5th 773 (2018). 480 Castillo v. Glenair, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 262, 266 (2018) (workers cannot “bring a lawsuit against a staffing company, settle that lawsuit, and then bring identical claims against the company where they have been placed to work”). 481 Grande v. Eisenhower Med. Ctr., 44 Cal. App. 5th 1147, 1162-63 (2020), rev. granted, No. S261247, 463 P.3d 168 (2020) (agreeing to decide “May a class of workers bring a wage and hour class action against a staffing agency, settle that lawsuit, and then bring a second class action premised on the same alleged wage and hour violations against the staffing agency’s client?”). 482 Id. at 1168 (Ramirez, P.J. dissenting). 483 AB 3075, 2020 bill adding Lab. Code § 200.3. The new law states that successorship is established if the alleged successor (1) uses substantially the same facilities or substantially the same workforce to offer substantially the same services as the judgment debtor, (2) has substantially the same owners or managers that control the labor relations as the judgment debtor, (3) employs as a managing agent any person who directly controlled the wages, hours, or working conditions of the affected workforce of the judgment debtor, or (4) operates a business in the same industry and the business has an owner, partner, officer, or director who is an immediate family member of any owner, partner, officer, or director of the judgment debtor. 484 Lab. Code §§ 551 (“Every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.”), 552 (“No employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven,”), and 556 (“Sections 551 and 552 shall not apply to any employer or employee when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.”). 485 Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 1074, 1087 (2017) (cautioning that the-day-of rest rule requires that “[i]f at one time an employee works every day of a given week, at another time shortly before or after she must be permitted multiple days of rest in a week to compensate, and on balance must average no less than one day’s rest for every seven”). 486 Id. (deferring to IWC and DLSE interpretations that the “six hours or less” in a day exemption means six hours or less in every day of the week).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4