PEOPLEASE Guides California Clients Through Independent Contractor Changes

MT. PLEASANT, SC: June 8, 2018.  For transportation business owners and workers, the debate about independent contractor classification has vast and potentially costly implications.  Federal and state governance of wages, taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, and work conditions vary depending upon an employer’s classification of his or her workers.  These differences impact the way companies hire and pay workers and the services and goods they provide their customers.

Regulatory agencies at both the federal and state levels have drawn attention to the legal ramifications of employee misclassification in recent years.  A slew of cases climbed to state superior courts, including appeals stemming from a suit brought by two delivery drivers against nationwide delivery company Dynamex.

In hearing Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, California became the most recent state to establish specific rules dictating how employers can hire and classify independent contractors.  The April 30, 2018 California Supreme Court decision in the Dynamex case expands the definition of employee and adopts a three-pronged test for independent contractor classification.

PEOPLEASE knows changes in employment law can be overwhelming.  Holding fast to our commitment as a human resources consultant, we collaborated with experts from national employment law firm Fisher Phillips to explain the Dynamex decision and its impact on California transportation businesses.

Fisher Phillips partner John Polson joined PEOPLEASE Chief Commercial Officer Paul Citarella for a live webinar on June 8, 2018.  Members of the transportation industry, insurance brokers, and PEOPLEASE team members learned about the Dynamex case and the legal precedence guiding the California Supreme Court decision, as well as practical application of the ABC test.

Polson explained that to hire a worker as an independent contractor, an employer must establish that the worker

(A) is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contractor for the performance of such work and in fact; and

(B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

Attendees interacted directly with Polson and PEOPLEASE staff during the live webinar.  Clients left the session with tangible steps for staying compliant with state employment regulations and avoiding costly mistakes.

PEOPLEASE remains committed to serving as a human resources consultant and demystifying the challenging and sometimes confusing employment landscape.

For more information regarding the California Independent Contractor ruling webinar, please contact Elaine Hume at 843.849.1164 or