Opinion ID: 6335029
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Good-Faith and Borello

Text: Tests At this point, we are equipped to state—and resolve— the ultimate issue before us: based on the undisputed material facts, and the state of California employment law in 2016 and 2017, 4 did Walmart have reasonable grounds to believe Hill was an independent contractor? We believe so. To be sure, Hill has put forth evidence that Walmart exercised significant control over her activities. Walmart selected Hill to model some of its products after she was photographed and measured at a “casting meeting,” and her information was passed on to a member of Walmart’s creative team. Before each photo shoot, Walmart sent instructions to Hill regarding her clothing, hair, nails, makeup, and general appearance. Walmart provided the clothing Hill was to wear for the shoots, which included shoes, dresses, undergarments, swimwear, and other items. Onsite stylists, producers, photographers, and other personnel chose the outfits and told Hill how to pose. When the shoots concluded, Hill returned the garments to Walmart. On the other hand, Hill arranged and paid for her own travel, and deducted her travel and other expenses—ranging from payments for getting her nails done to gym 4 We note that the events of this case took place before Cal. Lab. Code § 201.6 was enacted. That statute defines a “print shoot employee” as “an individual hired for a period of limited duration to render services relating to or supporting a still image shoot, including film or digital photography, for use in print, digital, or internet media,” and states that such employees are “entitled to receive payment of the wages earned and unpaid at the time of termination by the next regular payday.” The parties did not highlight this statute as relevant on appeal, and so we do not address it further. 18 HILL V. WALMART membership fees—as business expenses on her tax returns. Walmart did not provide Hill with a Form W-2, which reports an employee’s annual wages for federal income tax purposes. She also provided modeling services for other companies during the relevant yearlong period and was “free to decline any bookings from Walmart.” This suggests that Hill was engaged in a “distinct occupation or business.” The “length of time” Hill was employed—fifteen total days, each time in one- or two-day increments—also argues against employment status, as do the facts that she was paid a flat daily rate rather than an hourly wage and that, at the end of each shoot, she was asked to sign a voucher acknowledging that she would be paid for the use of her likeness. Moreover, Walmart did not provide Hill with tax forms, an employee handbook, or other trappings of a traditional employment relationship. Apart from the voucher acknowledging her services had been performed, Hill did not sign any Walmart documents. All these facts would have suggested to Walmart that the parties did not believe they were forming an employment relationship (the last Borello factor). 5 These unrebutted facts in the record also suggest that another Borello factor—“whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal”—weighs against employment status, or at most is neutral. Walmart is primarily a retailer. Although her modeling services were intended to be used to market products on Walmart’s website, Hill has not shown that taking photographs of 5 Hill testified in her deposition that she “was under the impression” that she was a Walmart employee during her photo shoots. However, because Hill points to no evidence that she expressed this belief to Walmart (as discussed in Part IIII.A), this testimony does not create a factual question as to the reasonableness of Walmart’s good-faith defense with respect to the final Borello factor. HILL V. WALMART 19 models is a regular part of Walmart’s business, as opposed to an activity conducted on an as-needed basis. Consequently, there were some reasonable grounds for Walmart to believe that Hill was an independent contractor, which is sufficient for a good-faith dispute.