§Why CasetextPricing

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, National Employment Law Project, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, La Raza Centro Legal, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-ALC, Impact Fund, Alexander Community Law Center, UCLA Center for Labor Research, Women’s Employment Rights Clinic, Worksafe, California Employment Lawyers Association, Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Supplemental Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 478 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

  2. Morillion v. Royal Packing

    22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 331 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

  3. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 444 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage

  4. Reynolds v. Bement

    36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise

  5. Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw

    14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 292 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DLSE Enforcement Manual was not entitled to higher level of deference accorded a regulation because it was not adopted consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act's requirements of public notice and comment

  6. Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.

    59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 167 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding trial court's finding that "substantial variations in control exist" is "sufficient to justify denying class certification and thus obviate any need for further inquiry [into secondary factors]"

  7. Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc.

    2 Cal.5th 257 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 110 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, under California law, "during rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time"

  8. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court

    220 Cal.App.3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 157 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no substantial evidence supported trial court's determination of independent contractor status in context of an order finding good faith settlement

  9. Yellow Cab Cooperative v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

    226 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 30 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that cab drivers provided service to cab company because “the enterprise could no more survive without [drivers] than it could without working cabs”

  10. Fillmore v. Irvine

    146 Cal.App.3d 649 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 18 times
    In Fillmore, the plaintiff was a drywall finisher who acted as an unlicensed independent contractor and hired other drywall workers.

  11. Section 3353 - Independent contractor defined

    Cal. Lab. Code § 3353   Cited 102 times
    Defining " ‘Independent contractor’ "

  12. Section 11090 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Transportation Industry

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11090   Cited 195 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing employee "shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless" employee is paid overtime