California Courts of Appeal
California’s “ABC” test for employment is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization ActTHE PEOPLE v. SUPERIOR COURT (CAL CARTAGE TRANSPORTATION EXPRESS)
DRAYAGE WORKERS WERE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF
Drayage involves the short haul transportation of goods, in this case from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Drivers were deemed independent contractors to the motor carrier companies for which they worked. The drivers frequently netted less than minimum wage or nothing at all, as they had to finance their trucks under unfavorable terms and accept various costs of doing business that would normally fall on an employing company. In 2018, S.B. 1402 referred to California’s drayage drivers as “the last American sharecroppers, held in debt servitude and working dangerously long hours for little pay.”
THE STATE SUED FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE CLAIMS PREEMPTED UNDER THE FAAAA
The Los Angeles City Attorney, acting for the State of California, filed a class action alleging unfair business practices. The People alleged that the defendant companies, by misclassifying drayage drivers as independent contractors, improperly realized various unfair advantages, including avoiding payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance payments, paystubs, and many others.
Upon motion by the defendants, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. It ruled that the Federal Aviation Authority Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempted AB 2257, which codified the “ABC” test, enumerated by our Supreme Court under Dynamex Operations W v. Superior Court.
THE APPELLATE COURT FOUND THAT THE FAAAA DOES NOT PREEMPT AB 2257 OR THE DYNAMEX TEST
The appellate court reversed by writ. It looked to our Supreme Court’s ruling in People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor, 59 Cal.4th 772 (2014) to find that the FAAAA’s preemption applied only to state laws that prohibited the use of independent contractors in
Here, no such prohibition was in effect, either explicitly or de facto. The ABC test does not preclude the use of independent contractors; it merely states the considerations used to determine proper classification of workers.
The court also rejected the argument that, because AB 2257 had limited exceptions for certain industries, it was not a rule of general applicability.
CONCLUSION
California continues to protect the wages of its workers. This ruling in favor of an exploited group is welcome news.
Similar issues are currently under consideration in the federal courts, including the 9th Circuit. The 1st Circuit has already ruled that prong B of the ABC test is preempted, and various district courts have split on the issue. There will probably be more decisions on this matter in the future.
COA, 2nd Dist. Div. 4, filed 11/19/20. Opinion by Justice Currey
Read More