Joint Employers: The Employer and the Temp Agency

In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc., plaintiff Elvia Jimenez was hired through a temp agency to work for a manufacturing company, U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. (USCM). Jimenez was ultimately fired by USCM, and she filed a wrongful termination case against USCM. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant soley because the jury believed that USCM was not Jimenez' employer. This decision was based on the defense argument that the temp agency had relatively more control over Jimenez than did USCM.

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision and the stage is set for a new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that USCM was Jimenez' employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jimenez was, in almost all respects, treated like an employee of the USCM, except that the USCM did not hire her, pay her, provide her benefits, or track her time. The temp agency did those things. But the Court of Appeal held that under FEHA, whether an entity counts as an employer depends on whether the employee’s allegations of wrongful conduct involve the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under the control of the employer, and not on whether the employer exercised “more” control over the employee than a co-defending employer.

That USCM did not hire Jimenez, pay her, provider her benefits, or track her time did not bear on the issue of whether USCM was a liable employer under FEHA, because those factors were outside the scope of the terms and conditions of Jimenez’s employment with USCM. What was relevant was that USCM did exercise considerable direction and control over Jimenez under the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment with USCM, including by terminating Jimenez’s services with the company.

At the new trial, the jury will be instructed that USCM was Jimenez’s employer under FEHA.

Employment laws are technical and ever-changing. Please contact LOEAB for guidance. As experienced employment attorneys, we can help.

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC. www.loeab.com

Comments

$4.5 Million in Wage Theft by Cheesecake Factory

The Labor Commissioner's Office recently found Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. liable in a $4.57 million wage theft case that underpaid 559 janitorial workers managed by Magic Touch Commercial Cleaning. Americlean Janitorial Services Corp., the Cheesecake Factory's janitorial contractor that subcontracted the work to Magic Touch is also liable. The wage theft occurred at eight locations in Ornage and San Diego counties. “This case illustrates common wage theft practices in the janitorial industry, where businesses have contracted and subcontracted to avoid responsibility for ensuring workers are paid what they are owed,” said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. “Client businesses can no longer shield themselves from liability for wage theft through multiple layers of contracts. Our enforcement benefits not only the workers who deserve to be paid, but also legitimate janitorial businesses that are underbid by wage thieves.” Investigators found that the janitorial worke

California's Dynamex Case: The ABC Test Simplifies The Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court published a ground-breaking decision in the case of Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Cal. Supreme Ct. no. S222732 , 2018 WL 1999120. The 85-page opinion is about when a worker may be classified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, under California's Wage Order. Wage Order 9 was at issue in this case. Dynamex is a nationwide courier whose drivers were once classified as employees by the company, but were later reclassified as independent contractors in 2004. Such reclassification is often executed by companies in order to generate economic savings at the expense of its employees. For example, in Dynamex , the drivers were required to provide their own vehicles and pay all transportation expenses, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. The gist of the decision is this: If the employer cannot satisfy the ABC test, then the worker is an employee under the "suffer or permit to work" definit

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes. To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes. The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe. The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to

Barrister Boyajian's Blog

Search This Blog