Source: https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/category/california-employment-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:02:39+00:00

Document:
In a post-Dynamex world, hiring entities are finding it increasingly difficult to determine whether or not to classify a worker as an independent contractor or an employee.
The applicability of this seemingly strict ABC test was clarified in Garcia v. Border Tranportation LLC (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 558. On October 22, 2018, the Court of Appeal released its opinion on Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC. In Border Transportation, Plaintiff Garcia, a taxi driver, filed a complaint against Border Transportation Group, LLC for wrongful termination, overtime, waiting time penalties, unfair competition and various wage order claims based on his alleged misclassification as an independent contractor. Border Transportation filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that under the Borello test, which largely focuses on control, Garcia was properly classified as an independent contractor. The trial court agreed with Border Transportation. Garcia appealed the ruling granting the motion for summary judgment, and while the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court released its opinion on Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court.
The Court of Appeal ultimately decided that in determining a worker’s status as an independent contractor, Dynamex only applies to wage order claims. As to all non-wage order claims, Borello remains the proper standard. (Garcia v. Border Transportation LLC (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 558, 570-71). Therefore, summary adjudication should not have been granted as to Garcia’s wage order claims but was proper as to his non-wage order claims.
Overall, although the Supreme Court has not ruled at this time, the Court of Appeal in Garcia v. Border Transportation LLC has provided an important exception to the strict Dynamex ABC test as it pertains to non-wage order claims. We will be paying close attention to further developments in the interpretation of this important exception.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ariel Brotman at [email protected]glaw.com.
In late 2017, the “Me Too” movement ignited after actress Ashley Judd publicly accused media mogul Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. Since then, the movement has led to vast changes in the workplace. Numerous industry leaders have fallen from grace. States are quickly passing legislation to attempt to curb sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace, and allegations of sexual harassment continue to rise. However, as Google employees proved last month, compliance with the law cannot be an employer’s only consideration.
When Andy Rubin stepped down from his executive role at Google in October of 2014, it appeared to be an amicable parting of ways. But three years later, a New York Times article revealed that Andy Rubin was forced to resign following a “credible” allegation of sexual harassment. The NYT also disclosed that Google gave Rubin an exit package worth approximately $90 million dollars, which was not required under his contract. Within days of learning this information, hundreds of Google employees staged a walk-out to protest their employer’s handling of alleged sexual misconduct.
In response to employee demands, Google CEO Sundar Pichai agreed not to enforce mandatory arbitration agreements with regard to claims of sexual harassment and assault. However, following their victory, Google employees began pushing for the arbitration clauses to be nixed entirely. On February 21, Google announced the end of its policy of forced arbitration and class action waivers for its employees.
There are many lessons we can learn from Google’s experience. First, never assume that resolution of a dispute will remain confidential. One of the most embarrassing aspects of this situation for Google—and what appears to have been the source of much employee infuriation—was the fact that Google could have terminated Rubin without paying him $90 million for allegations an internal investigation concluded to be credible.
Second, employers must weigh all costs and benefits of their policies regarding employees. While employers typically can require employees who have signed arbitration agreements to pursue their claims within the arbitration context, employers should also assess other factors in deciding how they handle the use of arbitration agreements with their workforce.
Third, sexual harassment continues to be a front-page issue. From giant tech companies to family-owned restaurants, allegations of sexual harassment are likely to make it into the news. So it is now more important than ever to ensure that employers get ahead of these issues by holding consistent harassment training, updating employee policies and manuals, and quickly and appropriately handling employee complaints.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Hassan Aburish at [email protected].
A California Court of Appeal upheld a $50,000 sanction against an attorney based on conduct at a deposition.
On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the case Anna Anka v. Louis Yeager. This case involved a child custody dispute between Paul Anka’s ex-wife, Anna Anka, and her first husband, Louis Yeager. As part of this dispute, the trial court had ordered that a confidential child custody and evaluation report be performed. Mrs. Anka was then subsequently involved in a second child custody dispute with her second husband/now ex-husband, Paul Anka.
Mrs. Anka was represented by the same attorney in both custody disputes. Mrs. Anka’s attorney took Mr. Yeager’s deposition as part of Mrs. Anka’s second custody dispute. During the deposition, Mrs. Anka’s attorney asked Mr. Yeager a series of questions to attempt to elicit confidential information regarding the contents of the evaluation and report from the first child custody dispute. Mr. Yeager testified that he could not recall the information. However, the trial court still sanctioned Mrs. Anka and her attorney $50,000 jointly and severally for her attorney’s reckless and malicious line of questioning that was orchestrated to elicit confidential child custody information.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the $50,000 sanctions against the attorney, but reversed the sanctions award as to Mrs. Anka. The Court found that the disclosure of confidential information was due solely to the attorney’s reckless and malicious conduct during the deposition. The Court opined that “besides being an advocate to advance the interest of the client, the attorney is also an officer of the court” and further that “counsel’s zeal to protect and advance the interest of the client must be tempered by the professional and ethical constraints the legal profession demands.” The Court held that the attorney’s conduct in eliciting confidential information during the deposition was not only reckless, but was intentional and willful.
The takeaway from this case is that in both California and across all states, there are real ethical limitations to zealous representation during depositions. Attorneys must remember to balance their duty to zealously represent their client’s interests with their duty as officers of the court to conduct themselves with integrity, courtesy, and professionalism.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Jenny Jin at (415) 352-6451 or [email protected].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.