Worker classification: employees and independent contractors: athletic coaches.
Summary
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (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 determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for those purposes. Existing law establishes that, for purposes 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 is 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. This test is known as the "ABC" test, as described above. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. This bill would extend the above-specified exemption to a sports coach for an elementary or secondary private school or local educational agency, as prescribed, and would define terms, including "sports coach," for these purposes.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 20, 2025
Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons
What changed between versions
01/05/26 - Amended Senate
→
SB527
·
1 edit
MINOR
No substantive policy changes were made between these two versions of SB 527. The differences are limited to formatting, removal of page/line numbers, and the addition of website navigation elements (menus, search bars, links). The actual legislative text - including the conditions for exempting sports coaches from the ABC test and the definitions - is identical in both versions.
TECHNICAL
Removed old-style formatting including page numbers, line numbers, and column layout. Added website UI elements such as navigation menus, search fields, and bill tracking links. No changes to the substantive legal text of Section 2784.5.
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
10
Key actions
2
Committee
1
Amendments
2
Jan 5, 2026
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
upper
Apr 7, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
upper
Mar 5, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
upper
Feb 20, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 6 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 527
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 527. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline