Worker status: employees and independent contractors.

Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to establish that a worker is an independent contractor for those purposes. Existing law, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, requires employers to make contributions with respect to unemployment insurance and disability insurance from the wages paid to their employees. Existing law defines "employee" for those purposes to include, among other individuals, any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application. The bill would provide that for purposes of the provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. The bill, notwithstanding this provision, would provide that any statutory exception from employment status or any extension of employer status or liability remains in effect, and that if a court rules that the 3-part test cannot be applied, then the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello) . The bill would exempt specified occupations from the application of Dynamex, and would instead provide that these occupations are governed by Borello. These exempt occupations would include, among others, licensed insurance agents, certain licensed health care professionals, registered securities broker-dealers or investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, real estate licensees, commercial fishermen, workers providing licensed barber or cosmetology services, and others performing work under a contract for professional services, with another business entity, or pursuant to a subcontract in the construction industry. The bill would also require the Employment Development Department, on or before March 1, 2021, and each March 1 thereafter, to issue an annual report to the Legislature on the use of unemployment insurance in the commercial fishing industry. The bill would make the exemption for commercial fishermen applicable only until January 1, 2023, and the exemption for licensed manicurists applicable only until January 1, 2022. The bill would authorize an action for injunctive relief to prevent employee misclassification to be brought by the Attorney General and specified local prosecuting agencies. This bill would also redefine the definition of "employee" described above, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, to include an individual providing labor or services for remuneration who has the status of an employee rather than an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the individual meets all of specified conditions, including that the individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. Because this bill would increase the categories of individuals eligible to receive benefits from, and thus would result in additional moneys being deposited into, the Unemployment Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would state that addition of the provision to the Labor Code does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The bill would also state that specified Labor Code provisions of the bill apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law while other provisions apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would additionally provide that the bill's provisions do not permit an employer to reclassify an individual who was an employee on January 1, 2019, to an independent contractor due to the bill's enactment. Existing provisions of the Labor Code make it a crime for an employer to violate specified provisions of law with regard to an employee. The Unemployment Insurance Code also makes it a crime to violate specified provisions of law with regard to benefits and payments. By expanding the definition of an employee for purposes of these provisions, the bill would expand the definition of a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.