California After Dynamex: Worker Classification by Favor, Folly and Faux Pas
Authors
Key Points
Press Release
Dynamex Decision Throws Dynamite on the Future of Independent Contractors
Media Contact
For general and media inquiries and to book our experts, please contact: pr@rstreet.org
Introduction
Work is changing. The types of employment available in the modern economy, and the very nature of labor itself, are evolving at the pace of technological progress. Yet, the framework through which organizations classify and understand their workers remains inflexible and seemingly incapable of adaptation. In recent years, high-profile court decisions and attendant legislative efforts have added to this tension by seeking to define both how Americans work and how the law categorizes that work.
No decision has been higher profile than Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles and no piece of legislation more significant than California Assembly Bill 5, introduced by Asm. Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher (D-San Diego). As conceived of at the date of publication, AB 5 would cement the Golden State’s post-Dynamex posture on worker classification for years to come—and for the worse. Not only would it ossify an outmoded, restrictive and outcome-dispositive classification test, it would do so while giving special treatment to groups based not on principle but raw political clout. Accordingly, it is vital to understand how this suddenly dire worker classification situation came to be, its implications and the threat it represents nationally, particularly if other jurisdictions hope to avoid following California’s current direction.
Read the full study here.
