Labour and employment laws and regulations

Order 25 pages.


Labour and employment laws and regulations are primarily involved with regulating workers terms and the general duties of the parties to the agreement. An important issue here is the classification of the worker. Such an issue is an important more so, in the gig economy. Here platform workers are either independent contractors or workers. The classification of such individuals was a central issue when assessing the situation with platform ride-hail and delivery drivers. The controversy was settled in leading case of Dynamex and later in legislation through the AB 5.

Further developments after these two have shown a somewhat different approach. This research paper shall hence seek to analyse the rights of platform drivers. It seeks to achieve this by highlighting the key developments in Dynamex and AB 5 assessing the pertinent issues raised. The paper shall then look at the Prop 22 assessing its impact on platform drivers and the copycat legislation.

  1. Case summary of Dynamex Operations Case and its effect on drivers for platform ride-hail and delivery drivers.  
    1. Case Summary of the Dynamex decision

Case citation

Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018).

Facts of the case

Dynamex Operations West Incorporated, was a company which offered courier and delivery services nationally. It had carried out business relatively well before the case was filed. The business engaged in internal changes its employment structure.

It reclassified the worker’s employment status from employees to independent contractors. The business cited financial purposes as the reason for this reclassification. This meant the drivers had to get insurance for their vehicles. They would also use their own cars to carry out delivery and courier services. Dynamex would among other things, set the fees for the services, fix the rate to pay the independent contractors and also gave fixed routes for the drivers who did not work on demand. Initially, the company would compensate the drivers for expenses incurred in carrying out their deliveries but under the reclassification, the drivers were given no reimbursement for transport expenses and toll charges.

Charles Lee and another employee had worked at Dynamex since 2005. Initially they had worked as independent contractors. He along with the other employee brought a law suit against Dynamex challenging the reclassification. This suit was on behalf of all the other drivers affected by this misclassification. They argued that the company had misclassified the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees of Dynamex. They argued that the reclassification was a violation of the Labour Code, Wage Order No. 9 and the Business and Professions Code.


Whether Dynamex misclassified the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees

Decision and Reasoning

The court at trial had in the preliminary stages rejected the suit as it did not meet its finding of a class action suit. This was later reversed in the Second District Court of Appeal. They reversed and remanded the decision. The court held that a class was correctly constituted by the complainants as their dispute related to drivers’ wage order violations. The trial court therefore certified a class action lawsuit relating to the Dynamex drivers who had not employed other drivers or carry out any other deliveries to their own customers while on the pay period. Aggravated by this Dynamex proceeded to the Supreme Court of California to review the decision.

The court here upheld the decision of the court of appeal holding that the ABC test was a suitable test to differentiate between independent contractors and employees. The California law requires that the hiring body to establish three factors when asserting that a worker is an independent contractor and free from its control. Thus, the employer has to show that the employee is free from its control in matters of work performance. 

Secondly, the employer has to show that the independent contractor completes his/her work outside the scope of the normal operations of the employer. Finally, the employer should show that the independent contractor as a separate set of skills and expertise that matches the professional services offered.  The complainants were found to be employees as they were not carrying out deliveries for their own customers. Therefore, Dynamex was found to have violated California Labour laws by misclassifying the drivers.

  1. The Impacts of the Dynamex Decision on drivers for platform ride-hail and delivery drivers.

Before delving into the impacts of Dynamex, it is first important to understand the terms platform ride hail drivers and delivery drivers. Ride hailing is the process by which a passenger uses a mobile application to order a customized vehicle. The apps used for such activities are called ride hail platforms. Ride hailing platforms allow the passenger to choose a car of his/her choice based on a myriad of factors including the capacity and other customizations. Common ride-hailing platforms include Uber, Lyft, Shyp among others. Moreover, ride hail platforms enable the passenger to choose the destination and the driver does not make stops during the journey. 

A delivery driver is a person who carries out courier or the distribution of goods. The platform delivery drivers carry out deliveries based on the requests and orders made on their online platform. The procedure is a bit similar to that of the ride-hail drivers as they carry out orders issued by customers in this. Previously, drivers were initially thought of as independent contractors. In as much as the drivers would act on these orders for instance, a driver in a ride hail application carries out a ride on an order posted on the platform. However, the driver is not seen as an employee of the platform.  Online platforms which back such platforms are owned by big tech companies and as such, claimed that the ride-hail drivers and the delivery drivers using their apps to get orders and rides. 

  1. Pre-Dynamex situation and classification of drivers

The platform drivers were seen as being independent contractors. The reason behind this is that first, they were classified as having acted in a manner independent from their online platforms. Furthermore, the drivers were seen as acting on their own initiatives and carrying out their own independent mandates. Moreover, being independent also meant that the drivers could not in essence have an employment relationship with the people they transported. Take for example the situation of the Uber drivers in Silicon Valley. They were classified as independent contractors and were thus seen as outside the employer-employee relationship.

The term independent contractors were defined in the case of S.G. Borello & Sons. Here the court interpreted the term to mean an individual who carries out a service for a definite payment for a specified result, under the control of his principal. Such a recompense is only payable as ae result of his/her work only and not as to the means by which such work is completed. As such the approach to defining an independent contractor was based on the understanding the agency relationship.

For there to exist a relationship between the two parties, the employer would have to be the principal and the employee the agent. The agent only carries out the functions outlined by the principal. Where this is not the case, an employment relationship cannot exist. The employee should be seen to be under the control of the employer. The classification of workers and independent contractors was also based on the issue of control. From the agency relationship view, the principal exercises control over the actions of the agent. This also includes acting under ones supervision or acting subjected to getting reimbursement from the hiring entity.As such all persons acting or getting paid for actions carried on their own volition are considered independent contractors. The impact of this was felt more in the case of classifying online platform workers.

The impacts of this were that the drivers were not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges accorded to employees. This includes important labour rights such as the right to form trade unions. The right to unionize is a very important right as it enables the employees to collectively advocate for their rights. It is limited to persons classified as employees and only employees can form and join trade unions. Those in trade unions can then carry out and engage in collective advocacy for better working conditions and better pay.

Notably, the situation for ride hail drivers and platform deliver drivers was difficult. Their classification as independent contractors proved to be a handicap. They not only lacked the essential right to unionize but also lacked the right to form trade unions. The impact of this was that drivers would not have many of their sensitive issues addressed. Issues such as working conditions, work benefits and better pay for their service. There was also the danger that many of drivers would be taken advantage of by the big tech companies that they worked for. 

There was an unfair balance between the drivers and the tech companies. The companies owning the platforms may exert a lot of pressure of pressure on the drivers based on their economic might. As such the misuse of this power may disadvantage the drivers and deny them an opportunity to adequately advocate for fairness when arguing out their issues. Also, based on the lack of any formal employment relationship, between the parties there. Another issue is that the drivers entered into contracts with the online platform providers. The issue was thus, whether such contracts would still be enforceable on both parties.

This is owing to the fact that there are obligations on both sides of the contract. There is at the first stage no existing contract. Therefore, there is in essence no duty with regards to the labour issue. Also, in the event of a dispute the drivers are not properly represented against the online platform providers. This diminishes their bargaining power in negotiation of their contracts with online platform providers. Most of the drivers were heavily dependent on the platform service providers for their livelihood and were hence greatly disadvantaged by this inequality.

  1. Post Dynamex Situation and Its benefits

The decision from Dynamex opened up opportunity for the reclassification of platform drivers. In fact, its most important impact was that after it, platform drivers who were previously classified as independent contractors were now seen as employees. The term employee ensured that the drivers were now able to enjoy the rights and privileges of employees. Such rights include the right to unionize. They could form worker unions for platform drivers between themselves to advocate for their rights.

This not only meant that platform workers were considered as employees but also assured them of the rights thereunder. Furthermore, the platform drivers could easily go on strike through the established and maintained structures. The issue here is that the previous dispensation did not adequately cater for the rights of the drivers. The Dynamex decision allowed courts to now carry out a case-by-case analysis of the cases brought before them. As such, where an issue of classification arose, the court would first carry out an analysis of the facts of each case. Then, each party would bring evidence proving the issue of classification.

Subsequent cases inspired by the case in Dynamex were a departure from the recently set standards. For instance, in the case of Parada. Here the case involved truck operators contracted to carry out shipment tasks by the East Coast Transport Company. The dispute arose when the claimants, Erick Parada and other truck drivers on the granting of meal periods, reimbursements and itemized wage statements. At trial, the court held that the appellants were not entitled to such rights as they were not employees. The court at appeal however held that the truck drivers were employees. In arriving at its decision, the court was guided by the provisions in Dynamex. It held that since the drivers had performed work within the usual course of the hiring bodies business, they were not independent contractors.

  1. Application of the ABC Standard

The impacts of Dynamex are far reaching. An important example is the application of the ABC test in the case. The ABC test generally provides for the steps taken when differentiating between an independent contractor and an employee. The test was stated in the case of Dynamex and was relied on by the bench in reaching its decision. The test was a broader application of the SG Borello & Sons test as it added more layers of consideration and aided in giving a more conclusive look into the issue.

It provides that when distinguishing between independent contractors and the employee the court should first ask, whether the employee was free from its control on matters of work performance. This means that the person was not accountable or answerable to the employer with regard to the duties assigned. The issue of control as argued earlier deals with whether the person in question was really working under the responsible authority of the employer. 

Moreover, another consideration is; whether the employer at any point direct, reprimand and/or demote the duties assigned. These considerations were elaborated further in Vazquez while commenting on Dynamex. The ability to give direction is essential. It asks the question of whether the person was acting on his/her own volition or was under the direction of the employer. Where the person was not under the employer’s direction then the employer then there exists an employment contract and the claimant is an employee. However, where there is no proof of that the claimant acts under the direction of the other party, there is no employment contract and he/she is an independent contractor. 

The word control here depends on the circumstances of each case. In the Parada case for the court found that the respondents had only exercised limited control over Appellants’ work. Also, the respondent company did not carry out supervision on the Appellants duty. Inasmuch as there was limited control here there was still a semblance of direction in which the court found to contain enough proof of en employment relationship. In Vendor Control Surveillance, the court interpreted this requirement to require the claimant to show that it was exercising control over the claimants’ duties.

In the case of the platform drivers like Uber, to show they are employees, they will have to show that they are under the control of Uber and their actions are directed by the company. They carry out only that which is provided for by the company. Moreover, there should be proof that they do not act on independent motivation but are guided and directed by the company. They should also prove that they were supervised and directed by the company. Any form of supervision should be connected to the intended completion of the task.

The second part of the ABC test requires, asks whether the claimant carried out duties which were outside the hiring entity’s business. This part of the test requires that the court assess the purpose of the hiring entity (in this case a company) and its main mode and form of business. The claimant should be seen to act within the purpose and aim of the business. For instance, where such an entity carries out delivery services to and from an airport, transporting people would seem to be outside its business. If the claimant carries out functions outside the hiring entities business as seen in this example, he/she is an independent contractor. Thus, what will be considered is the mandate issued to the claimant and the business structure in the business. For instance, in the case of Vendor Surveillance, the court interpreted this requirement to mean that the claimant carried out functions beyond the specifications of the hiring corporation. 

The third part of the ABC test asks whether the claimant was carrying out an independent trade from that of the hiring entity. This requires the court to assess whether the claimant was undertaking an independent form of work from that of the hiring entity. The work may be similar and the duties in line with what was engaged in. The issue comes in where the claimant is an independent body on its on different from the hiring entity. They will in essence be two different bodies carrying out the same business. In this situation the claimant is an independent contractor. He/she carries out an independent business from that of the hiring entity and is not an employee of the hiring entity.

  • Summary and analysis of AB 5 and its impact on drivers
    • Summary of AB 5

Worker classification has not only been an issue in the courts but has also found its way to concrete and possibly binding legislation. An example of this is the passing of Assembly Bill 5 intended to resolve key issues in worker classification. The bill provides for amendment to the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission with regard to its wage orders and the Unemployment Insurance Code. The provisions require that workers are to be considered as employees by the hiring entity unless they meet the test of an independent contractor under the ABC test.

The law applies to almost half of the workers in the State of California. The rest, who may not be automatically reclassified or those who enter into new contracts of employment, will have to seek reclassification from the courts.  These lawsuits are to be filled in court challenging the classification accorded by the hiring body.  Moreover, the workers can also file a complaint depending on the agency regulating their type of business. It provides that the workers are eligible and entitled to work injury compensation, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance and minimum wage among other benefits. Benefits previously not enjoyed in prior to the bill.

It is also important to note that the AB5 does not apply to all areas and employees.  Medical services and persons carrying out such practices will be subject to the Borello test. This is because such service providers are seen to work in a care industry requiring sensitive attention. The same exception applies to workers carrying out non-professional services. These include, barbers, cosmetologists etc. In its application, a worker employed by another corporation could offer his/her services to another corporation or business. This will be formalized between the two corporations by a contract signed between them.

The application of the Borello test is dependent on the hiring entity establishing six factors. First, it has to show that the worker has a business location, which is separate from its own place of business. Second, the worker should have been offering his/her services for more than six months and should have a business license, along with all other professional licences after the effective date. 

Third, the worker should have the ability to fix or negotiate his/her own charges for the services offered. Fourth, the worker should be able to set his/her own working hours beyond the reasonable professional stipulations. Five, the worker should market or hold him/herself out to other likely clients as available where he/she performs the same type of work the hiring entity specializes in. Sixth, the worker should exercise individual discretion and judgment in deciding the direction and conduct of his/her duties. 

  • Impacts of AB5

The impacts of AB5 were both positive and negative. On the positive side, most of the platform drivers in companies such as Door dash and Lyft were now classified as employees. Some who were automatically reclassified enjoyed rights and privileges previously not accorded to them. Another advantage was that it was now legally binding upon these companies to consider the ABC test. The courts were also to now consider the ABC test where a law suit was filed against a company. The court would still look at the facts of each case, but this was a positive turn as it allowed a wider test to be applied.

Concerning the worker’s rights, the drivers now had an equal footing with other employees in other industries. The right to minimum wage for instance was seen as a big win. The ability to claim benefits such as sick leave and work injury compensation was also a positive addition. Moreover, delivery drivers could now have the right to unionize under this legislation. Where these entitlements were not granted, the workers could also seek to remedy the situation via courts or to file complaints in the relevant government offices. 

The AB5 was undoubtedly a huge departure from the previous position. The ability to bring a lawsuit will act as a safeguard against possible exploitation that persisted in the previous dispensation. Moreover, it increases the level of oversight on employment contracts and labour relations. The worker now enjoys rights of any other worker outside the gig economy and has a means to enforce and implement these rights. It is a positive step for employee accountability.

The AB5 also provides for more scrutiny into the relationship between the worker and the hiring entity in a gig economy. The corporate employers would now have a wider range of considerations to make before making their classification of a worker and before hiring an individual. Now, this can act both as a benefit and as a detriment. As a benefit the worker will enjoy some form of freedom from exploitation. It calls for the hiring corporation to clearly outline the roles and duties of the worker. It also provides that the hiring entity consider the services offer and the manner in which these services are offered. This is to ensure that there is clarity as the classification of the worker will be based on the actual situation on the ground and in the business.

The negative effects of the AB5 are mostly on the side of the hiring entities. First, most of these hiring entities have to now reclassify a lot of the workers previously seen as independent contractors into workers. This, as seen above, comes with a multitude of rights and privileges. The duty, to implement and provide for these rights falling squarely on the hiring entity. There will be considerable economic constraints as a change of status demands a restructuring of the internal systems. Previous independent contractors will need budgetary allocation to cater for the work benefits, the reimbursement for deliveries, the compensation for injuries among others. This poses an evident burden on the company to make more money in order to cater for these expenses. 

The company will in turn start increasing the rates and charges on the services, cutting down on costs or even making a great deal of losses. From an economic point of view, AB5 was a punch in the gut for companies in the gig economy. These were arguments raised in the case of Olson by the attorneys for Uber Technologies. Here, Uber Technologies sought an injunction stopping the application of the AB5 bill. They cited the possible and evident costs incurred and stated that the same would be unreasonable. The court rejected their application but, their arguments were a true depiction of the evident detrimental impacts of the bill on companies.

The AB5 also affected the workers in that it led to rigidity. Although this issue is not wide spread, it does affect the workers as a result of the AB5. Previously workers had some flexibility with regard to the as to their role and functions. For instance, a worker had the freedom to choose the company to work for. He/she also had flexibility as to the amount of work he/she was to do and the diversity in working hours, projects and tasks to undertake. 

When AB5 was passed some of these workers were now automatically converted into employees. They had to follow the direction given by their hiring entity and were placed under the control of the company. Workers could now not sit on the fence of being either worker or independent contractor and had to choose as side.  Once classified as worker, the flexibility as to jobs they would do disappeared they were limited to what their corporation would dictate and to what extent granted.  

  • Summary and analysis of Prop 22 and its impact on drivers
    • Summary of Prop 22

Proposition 22 (Prop 22) is an initiative by the government of California for the people. It proposes amendments to the Revenue and Taxation Code and additions to the Business and Professions Code. It was proposed and initiated in line with Section 8 Article II of the California Constitution. From a general point of view, it proposes to declare app-based drivers of certain network companies classified as independent contractors.  Three key areas are covered by the proposal. Its proposals include:

Compensations and Minimum Wage.

First, it requires that the minimum level of compensation for app-based drivers be calculates on engaged time. The sum for all engaged time here will be the sum of 120% of all the applicable minimum wage as contained in Article 3 on Compensations. Applicable minimum wage is defined as the minimum wage paid by all industries. Where a driver picks up a passenger, the location at which that passenger is picked will determine the applicable minimum wage and this will apply throughout the engaged time.  

The engaged time here means the period of time the driver accepts the request and completes the request from the network. This is exclusive of the coverage the driver makes while waiting to accept a request.The proposal also defined the earnings period as the time set by the network company. The proviso on this is that the period should not exceed 14 successive days. The earnings are also exclusive of the fees charged at airports or for cleaning, any bonuses or incentives. 


The proposed amendments to Article 4 require that the network can limit the issue of the healthcare subsidy based on the amount of engaged time the driver has clocked in. For instance, where a driver averages 25 hours or more in a week for a calendar quarter, he/she will be eligible for 100% of the premiums covered by the monthly Covered California Premium. Where, the driver averages 15 hours per week then he/she will be eligible for 50% of the aforesaid premium.

The Covered California are also granted the discretion to amend the regulations after considering the health plans available. The network will need to verify the health plan records to verify that the worker is enrolled in these schemes. This will be crosschecked alongside the records on engaged time. Moreover, the drivers are allowed a minimum of 15 days at the end of the quarter to apply for a sick leave. The proposal also requires that the network company should provide insurance for the compensation of occupational accidents. This insurance shall cover expenses of up to a million dollars, payments for disability of up to 66% of the driver’s weekly pay. However, the payment of these compensation is restricted to accidents that occur within the engaged time.


The proposal defines acts of discrimination as the situation where a contract is terminated, not renewed or not offered by the network company to a person based on race, gender, sexual orientation, medical condition, marital status, military, veteran status, disability and religion. To safeguard this, network companies are required to come up with internal laws to regulate and enforce sexual harassment.  The policies are to have a broader spectrum on acts that qualify to mean sexual harassment including verbal and non-verbal cues.

Also, the proposal requires that the network sets up a structure that receives and acts on complaints of harassment or discrimination. The policies will also need to be reviewed, confirmed and all claims arising out of these claims are to be acted on pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The proposal also requires that the network carry out criminal background checks on possible employees. The driver may not use the app-based network where he/she has been convicted of a crime under the Public Utilities Code in the past seven years, if he/she has been convicted of any hate crime, or where he/she has been convicted of a felony under the Public Utilities Code.

The driver may also be suspended from using the app-based network upon arrest. This will relate to crimes and offences under the Public Utilities Code at Section 5445. The network can also impose an additional internal policy on matters of criminal history. This will apply to both the independent contractors and employees.

  • Impacts of Prop 22 on drivers and its criticisms

Prop 22 has had a great deal of public backlash. Many consider it a detriment to the progressive achievements put forth by AB5. This part of the review shall carry out an analysis of the impacts of Prop 22. It will compare the situation with that of AB5 and give the views of those affected by it. Moreover, it shall asses the critique against it.

The first issue is that the health benefits are lower than those in the AB5. From the definition of the terms under the new proposals, the average worker will have to drive for more hours in order to reach the threshold required for the payment of compensation. The proposed threshold the average ACA contribution is 82%. The reality of this is that the engaged time in this case would mean that the worker has to work 39 hours a week but receive an 82% of his/her premium payment. This means they work longer for a smaller return. It also places a standard rate rather than the previously flexible standard in the AB5.

Consequently, Prop 22 proposes the disadvantageous impacts to worker’s compensation. Whereas the proposition maintains that the compensation for temporary disability arising out of an occupational injury, others have been reduced. For instance there is a cap on the amount of medical expenses at one million dollars. The danger of this is that the insurance companies may deny the injured parties the compensation needed where the injury goes above one million dollars. There is also no benefit on permanent disability and no death benefits for the children of the deceased.

The law also proposes that permanently disabled workers will only get payments for a maximum of 104 weeks. This along with the restriction on the death benefits for survivors, means that the families of the affected parties are at a more disadvantaged. Families may lose their breadwinners to the occupational hazards and work-related injuries. They are thus unable to earn a building. Now under the previous laws, the families could be compensated.

Also, the anti-discrimination provisions in the proposition weaken the existing protections. The grounds stated under the propositions are greatly narrowed. They are limited and provide a very limited scope to the areas prone to harassment and discrimination. The remedies given are also arguably insufficient and vague. It is argued that the remedies for harassment are not clearly laid out creating a serious issue if an actual incident occurs. 

Majority of the critics’ view Prop 22 see it as more of a push by corporations to increase profits whilst taking advantage of worker rights. For instance, Kenrick Cal notes that most companies made huge losses as a result of the AB5. This prompted the move towards a more different approach into the worker classification. The cap for instance on worker compensation, insurance and other benefits was necessitated by the need to cut on costs. AB5 increased the number of employees and in turn increased the number of responsibilities on the company. Thus, companies had to lobby for legislative amendment to counter the financial losses.

Critics also argue that the Prop 22 will essentially make its amendments to this law unamendable in future. The initiative proposes the legislature to have a majority of seven-eights in order to change the law in future. This is such a high threshold that would fundamentally prevent the changes in the law. The law will hence undermine key principles of good governance as it ensures that the existing mechanisms cannot change an evidently oppressive law. It also limits the democratic power and will. The large threshold is seen as excessive and restrictive. The procedure in the law is also restrictive as in embodies a lot of delays that frustrate the process.

Critics also take issue with the amount of desertion granted to corporations. A great deal of the matters proposed are left to the discretion of the corporation with regard to employment contracts. For instance, the discretion of the medical insurance compensation. The company has the discretion is given to the companies to decide on what rates to pay. Moreover, the issue of harassment only provides that there should be a structure that receives complaints.

Whether or not the company will act on such complaints is under the choice of the company. Critics view this as evidence of the corporations being above the law. Due to their large financial might, the corporations may hold an upper hand when proposing the changes to laws. For instance, the Uber Technologies makes considerable contributions to the state. Thus, they may strong arm the state to make friendlier laws that favour their situation.

Copycat legislation

To combat the effects of the AB 5 and the precedent laid down in the case of Dynamex, companies have engaged in internal pushes to secure their situation. As argued earlier, the AB 5 did leave the companied at a somewhat precarious situation as the cost of operations increase. Other than increasing the costs on services offered, companies have engaged in tweaking their policies to cater for any detrimental impacts of the enacted laws. This is based on risks made apparent by the classification of workers previously viewed as independent contractors. They are hence greatly affected by the detrimental impacts of the have engaged in schemes to protect themselves. This section of the paper shall review the various attempts made by ride-hail companies to push similar legislation.

Attempts have been made by the Uber in other states include moves in New York. Here the corporation is the funds the legislation and promotes the bill through financial sponsorship. Funding bills will include backing the legislators and active public campaigns. These campaigns ensure that the public are carried out to increase public awareness through well-funded and advertised campaigns. Such campaigns will include a well thought out and marketed based on what the corporations wish to market.

Other campaigns include various campaigns that are positioned in the with flashy campaigns that seek to disseminate the possible increase in costs as demerits of progressive rights. The campaigns are also backed by the internal pressure in the corporations. This includes the use of suspensions and penalties within the apps hat seek to punish the possible whistle-blowers.  The other internal laws proposed by these companies include the limited access to the apps. Since they have the upper hand in the economy.


A majority of the issues arise out of the attempt to define who the worker is in the employment contract. In a gig economy involving platform drivers the issue bottles down to whether the driver is an independent contractor or an employee. The previous standard set by the Dynamex case later legislated in the AB 5, establish the ABC test. Due to the possible impacts this has on the corporations have pushed the enactment of Prop 22. However, Prop 22 presents a worse situation for the drivers in terms of the employment and labour rights.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )