In re Field Asset Services, Inc.

Background

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. This order addressed supplemental briefing about waiting-time claims involving Tim Miller, Tim Purkett, and Gilberto Rodriguez. The court had previously determined that the business-to-business exception to California’s ABC employee-classification test did not apply to these plaintiffs and that each was a sole proprietor. The defendants did not pursue their joint-employment arguments against them.

Legal issue

The plaintiffs argued that the ABC test applied to their claims for waiting-time penalties under California Labor Code sections 201 through 203. The defendants argued that the older Borello test applied because the claims arose under the Labor Code rather than directly under a wage order.

The court relied on California authority stating that the ABC test applies to Labor Code claims rooted in, or based on conduct violating, wage-order protections. It also considered a California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement opinion letter and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court distinguished a Ninth Circuit decision applying the Borello test where the plaintiff had not alleged any wage-order violation, explaining that the decision did not establish that Borello always applies to section 203 claims.

Ruling

The court concluded that Miller’s, Purkett’s, and Rodriguez’s waiting-time claims were rooted in wage orders because the claims sought to enforce payment of wages, depended on the plaintiffs’ overtime claims, and alleged violations of Labor Code and wage-order protections. The court therefore held that the ABC test applied.

For the reasons given in the prior order and because the Ninth Circuit had explained that summary judgment was proper for sole-proprietor plaintiffs under prong B of the ABC test, the court determined that these plaintiffs were employees as a matter of law. It granted summary judgment as to liability for their waiting-time claims. A jury will decide the amount of damages.

The order also briefly previewed a later ruling concerning corporate vendor plaintiffs. It stated that those plaintiffs’ misclassification claims would survive summary judgment and would not be treated as joint-employment claims. It further stated that the jury would decide whether the business-to-business exception applied to the claims of Bush, Cherrin, and Cohick, and then whether they were employees of Field Asset Services, Inc. The court stated that a subsequent order would deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication on those issues.