(a)Section 2775 does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission and violations of this code relating to wage orders.
(b)Insofar as the application of Sections 2776 to Section 2784 would relieve an employer from liability, those sections shall apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(c)Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this section, this article shall apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020.
(d)If a hiring entity can demonstrate compliance with all of conditions set forth in any one of Sections 2776 to 2784, inclusive, then Section 2775 and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to that entity, and instead the determination of
an individual’s employment status as an employee or independent contractor shall be governed by Borello.
Notes of Decisions
Raef Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 2785 (b). On remand, Grubhub will have the opportunity to show that one of these exemptions applies to its relationship to Lawson.”
Fred Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., 60 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “2021) (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 2785 (c)). Because the claims at issue in this case arise from conduct that occurred before January 1, 2020, AB 5 does not decide the test applicable to the expense reimbursement claims.”
Fred Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., Inc. (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “2021) (citing Cal. Lab. Code § 2785 (c)). Because the claims at issue in this case arise from conduct that occurred before January 1, 2020, AB 5 does not decide the test applicable to the expense reimbursement claims.”
Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By The Sea CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 2785.) In this case, Amanda Neeble-Diamond worked as the clinical director for Hotel California By The Sea, LLC (HCBTS), a substance abuse treatment facility, prior to 2020.”
Hall v. Cultural Care, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 2785 (b). 25 There is no dispute that the plaintiffs here are the precise class of people that Section 26 2783(i) applies to.”
Estrada v. Scars of the Mind Picture Co. CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
“) While the new Labor Code provisions codifying the ABC test make clear that it applies to all cases arising under Labor Code section 2775, subdivision (b)(1), the new statutes expressly apply only “to work performed on or after January 1, 2020” (Lab. Code, § 2785, subd. (c)),…”
Kawaski Corley v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2022).
“; Cal. Lab. Code § 2785 . 4 By contrast, for all claims that do not arise from a Wage Order, such as claims brought 5 directly under the California Labor Code, the statutory ABC Test functions only 6 prospectively, from January 1, 2020, forward.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 2785(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.