Dynamex v. Superior Court: The Ultimate Guide to California's ABC Test

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation.

Imagine you own a small coffee shop. One day, a pipe bursts, and you call an emergency plumber. The plumber arrives with their own tools, gives you an invoice for the job, and then leaves to serve other clients. Are they your employee? Of course not. They're an independent contractor. Now, imagine you hire a barista to work a regular 9 AM to 5 PM shift. You provide the espresso machine, set their schedule, train them on your recipes, and tell them how to greet customers. Are they an independent contractor? No, they are clearly an employee. For decades, the line between these two scenarios could get incredibly blurry in California, leading to confusion and disputes. Then, in 2018, the California Supreme Court case Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court dropped like a bombshell. It swept away the old, complicated test and installed a new, much stricter standard called the “ABC Test”. This single ruling fundamentally changed the definition of an “employee” for many California workers and businesses, especially in the burgeoning gig economy. It made it significantly harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, sending shockwaves through industries from trucking to tech.

• Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:
  • The ABC Test is the New Standard: The Dynamex v. Superior Court case established a strict, three-part “ABC test” that presumes a worker is an employee unless the hiring company can prove all three specific conditions. abc_test.
  • It Impacts Millions of Californians: The Dynamex decision directly affects any California business that uses independent contractors and any worker classified as one, impacting their rights to things like minimum_wage, overtime, and workers_compensation.
  • It Led to Major Legislation: The ruling was so significant that it was later written into law through a bill known as `assembly_bill_5_(ab5)`, which was then challenged by `proposition_22`, making this one of the most dynamic areas of U.S. labor law.

Before the *Dynamex* earthquake, the ground rules for worker classification in California were defined by a different landmark case: S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989). For nearly 30 years, the `borello_test` was the law of the land. Unlike the simple-sounding ABC test, *Borello* was a complex, multi-factor balancing act. The most important question it asked was about the “right to control.” In essence, the more control a company had over the *manner and means* of how a worker performed their job—not just the final result—the more likely that worker was an employee. However, “control” was just the start. Courts would look at a whole host of secondary factors, creating a murky legal environment. These factors included:

• Whether the worker was engaged in a distinct occupation or business.
• The skill required for the particular occupation.
• Who supplied the tools, equipment, and place of work.
• The length of time for which the services were to be performed.
• The method of payment (by the hour or by the job).
• Whether the work was part of the regular business of the principal.
• The intentions or beliefs of the parties involved.

The problem with the *Borello* test was its unpredictability. Because no single factor was decisive, two different judges could look at the exact same working relationship and come to opposite conclusions. This created uncertainty for both businesses, who struggled with compliance, and workers, who were unsure of their rights. This legal gray area is the world into which *Dynamex* was born.

The *Dynamex* case wasn't created in a vacuum. It was an interpretation of existing laws that were designed to protect workers. The primary legal pillars were California's Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. The `iwc_wage_orders` are a set of industry-specific regulations that govern wages, hours, and working conditions in California. These orders contain their own broad definition of “employ,” which includes “to suffer or permit to work.” The California Supreme Court in *Dynamex* decided to look closely at this definition. They reasoned that this language was meant to be expansive, to protect workers who might be improperly labeled as independent contractors to avoid the costs and responsibilities of employment, such as paying for unemployment_insurance and adhering to `minimum_wage` laws. The court decided that to properly apply this protective definition from the wage orders, a simpler, clearer, and more worker-protective test was needed. They didn't invent the ABC test from scratch; they adopted a version already used by other states like Massachusetts. The court's decision was essentially that for the purposes of the wage orders, the old *Borello* test wasn't sufficient to protect workers from `worker_misclassification`.

Worker classification isn't just a California issue, but the Golden State's approach is now one of the most stringent. A look at other jurisdictions reveals a patchwork of different standards.

The ruling in *Dynamex v. Superior Court* created a simple, powerful, and demanding standard. It starts with a crucial presumption: every worker is an employee. The burden of proof is entirely on the hiring company to prove otherwise. To do so, the company must demonstrate that the worker satisfies ALL THREE of the following conditions (Prongs A, B, and C). If they fail to prove even one prong, the worker is legally an employee for the purposes of the wage orders.

This prong is the most similar to the old `borello_test`. It examines whether the hiring company has the right to control how the worker performs their tasks, both under the contract and in reality.

• What it means: Does the company tell you what to do and how to do it? Do they set your hours, require you to work at a specific location, mandate specific training, or dictate the sequence of your work? If the answer is yes, the company will fail to prove Prong A, and you are an employee.
• Relatable Example: A software company hires a freelance writer to produce three blog posts per month. The company provides a general topic and a deadline but doesn't dictate the writer's work hours, location, or writing process. The writer uses their own computer and software. This likely satisfies Prong A, as the writer is free from the company's control and direction.
• Contrast Example: The same software company “hires” a “freelance” customer service agent. The agent must log in from 9 AM to 5 PM, follow a detailed script when talking to customers, use company-provided software, and attend mandatory weekly training sessions. This fails Prong A, as the company heavily controls the manner and means of the work.

This is the most revolutionary and impactful part of the ABC test. It is the prong that most directly affects gig economy companies and businesses that rely on a core group of contract workers.

• What it means: Is the service you provide fundamental to the company's core business offering? Or is it an auxiliary service that merely supports the business?
• Relatable Example: Let's go back to the coffee shop.
  • The Plumber: Fixing a pipe is necessary for the shop to operate, but it is not the coffee shop's core business. The shop is in the business of selling coffee, not plumbing services. Therefore, the plumber's work is outside the usual course of business. This satisfies Prong B.
  • The Barista: Making and serving coffee is the core business of the coffee shop. A barista's work is central and essential to the company's very purpose. Therefore, the barista's work is not outside the usual course of business. This fails Prong B.
• Real-World Impact: Consider a ride-sharing company. Is providing rides to customers part of its “usual course of business”? Under the ABC test, the answer is a clear yes. Therefore, under a pure *Dynamex* analysis, the drivers would be considered employees because the company cannot satisfy Prong B.

This final prong checks whether the worker is truly in business for themselves. It’s not enough for a company to simply allow a worker to have other clients; the worker must have an independent business that would survive even without this specific hiring company.

• What it means: Do you have your own business entity (like an LLC), a business license, professional insurance, and a client base beyond this one company? Do you market your services to the public?
• Relatable Example: An accountant who serves 20 different small businesses, has her own office, advertises her services, and carries professional liability insurance is clearly engaged in an independently established accounting business. This satisfies Prong C.
• Contrast Example: A delivery driver works exclusively for one food delivery app. He has no other clients, no business license, and no separate business identity. If that app terminates his contract, his “business” effectively ceases to exist. This fails Prong C.

• The Worker/Plaintiff: The individual who believes they have been misclassified as an independent contractor. Their goal is to be reclassified as an employee to gain access to legal protections and benefits like overtime pay, meal breaks, and expense reimbursement.
• The Company/Defendant: The hiring entity that classified the worker as an independent contractor. Their goal is to prove that the worker satisfies all three prongs of the ABC test to avoid the significant costs associated with employment, such as `payroll_taxes`, `workers_compensation` insurance, and potential `vicarious_liability`.
• The California Supreme Court: The judicial body that created the *Dynamex* standard. While the initial case is decided, its interpretations and subsequent rulings continue to shape the law.
• California's Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA): Government bodies like the `division_of_labor_standards_enforcement_(dlse)`, also known as the Labor Commissioner's Office, are tasked with investigating wage claims and enforcing labor laws, including those related to worker classification.

The shift from *Borello* to the ABC test was not just a theoretical legal change; it has profound, real-world consequences. Here is a practical guide for both workers and business owners navigating this new landscape.

Ask yourself the tough questions based on the three prongs. Be brutally honest.

1. Prong A (Control): Does my client dictate my hours? Do they require me to use their equipment? Do I have to follow a specific script or detailed instructions on how to do my job?
2. Prong B (Course of Business): Is the work I do the main thing this company sells or provides? If I'm a driver for a delivery company, a writer for a content marketing firm, or a cleaner for a cleaning service, my work is likely part of their usual business.
3. Prong C (Independent Trade): Do I have other clients? Do I have a business license, a professional website, or business cards? If this one client dropped me tomorrow, would my business still exist?

If the answer to any of these questions suggests you are an employee, you may be misclassified.

Evidence is everything. Start collecting and organizing key documents that define your working relationship.

• Your independent contractor agreement or contract.
• Emails, text messages, or app communications that show the company's control over your work.
• Pay stubs, invoices, and payment records.
• Schedules, work assignments, or performance reviews.
• Any documents that show expenses you had to pay out-of-pocket (e.g., gas, vehicle maintenance, supplies).

If you are found to be a misclassified employee, you may be entitled to significant compensation, including:

• Unpaid Wages: Payment for `minimum_wage` and `overtime` violations.
• Expense Reimbursement: Repayment for business-related expenses (e.g., mileage).
• Missed Meal and Rest Breaks: Penalties for breaks you were entitled to but didn't receive.
• Waiting Time Penalties: Additional pay if your final wages were not paid on time after your job ended.

You have several pathways to address misclassification.

1. File a Wage Claim: You can file a claim with the California `division_of_labor_standards_enforcement_(dlse)`. This is an administrative process that does not require a lawyer, though legal guidance is highly recommended.
2. File a Lawsuit: You can file a civil lawsuit in court, either individually or as part of a `class_action_lawsuit` with other similarly situated workers. This requires hiring a `plaintiffs_attorney`.
3. Consult an Attorney: Before taking formal action, it is always wise to consult with an experienced employment lawyer. They can assess your case, explain the `statute_of_limitations` for your claims, and guide you on the best course of action.

Do not assume your long-standing contractor relationships are safe. Proactively review every 1099 worker using the ABC test as your guide. The burden of proof is on you.

This is the make-or-break test for many businesses. If a contractor performs the core service your company offers to the public, it is extremely difficult to classify them as a contractor. You may need to seriously consider reclassifying these workers as employees or restructuring your business model.

For contractors who perform auxiliary roles (like the plumber for the coffee shop), you should still strengthen their independent status.

• Contracts: Use well-drafted `independent_contractor_agreement`s that explicitly state the worker is an independent business, controls their own work, provides their own tools, and is free to work for others.
• Onboarding and Management: Avoid practices that suggest employment. Do not provide mandatory training on the “how” of the job, set specific hours, or conduct performance reviews as you would for an employee.
• Encourage Independence: When possible, work with contractors who have an established business entity (e.g., an LLC or corporation), carry their own business insurance, and serve other clients.

The financial risks of getting it wrong are enormous and can include:

• Back wages, overtime, and penalties.
• Unpaid `payroll_taxes` (Social Security, Medicare) and state employment taxes.
• `Workers_compensation` premiums and liability for on-the-job injuries.
• Significant legal fees from defending lawsuits.

The *Dynamex* decision was not the end of the story; it was the beginning of a massive political and legal battle over the future of work in California.

In 2019, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 5, more commonly known as `assembly_bill_5_(ab5)`. This landmark legislation took the ABC test from the *Dynamex* court decision and officially wrote it into the California Labor Code, expanding its application beyond just wage orders to nearly all aspects of employment law in the state, including unemployment insurance and workers' compensation. AB5 was a monumental victory for labor advocates but a source of immense concern for businesses and freelancers. The law included a complex web of exemptions for certain professions—like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and some creative professionals—who would still be evaluated under the old *Borello* test. However, for many others, including truck drivers, gig workers, and many freelance writers and artists, AB5 made it nearly impossible to continue working as independent contractors.

The companies most directly threatened by AB5—namely ride-sharing and delivery app giants like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash—responded with a historic political campaign. They sponsored a 2020 ballot initiative called Proposition 22. `proposition_22` was designed to create a special carve-out from AB5 specifically for app-based drivers and delivery workers. The companies spent over $200 million on their campaign, making it the most expensive ballot measure in California history. Prop 22, which passed with 59% of the vote, reclassified these workers as independent contractors but also granted them a new set of limited benefits, such as a minimum earnings guarantee (based on engaged time, not total time), healthcare stipends, and accident insurance. Prop 22 remains a subject of intense legal challenges, with courts debating its constitutionality.

One huge question left open by *Dynamex* was whether its ABC test applied to work performed *before* the 2018 decision was issued. In 2021, the California Supreme Court answered that question in `vazquez_v_jan-pro_franchising_inc`. The court held that Dynamex is retroactive. This meant that businesses could be held liable for misclassifying workers for years prior to the *Dynamex* ruling, significantly increasing their potential financial exposure for past `wage_and_hour_law` violations.

The fight over worker classification that erupted in California has gone national. The “California model” of using the ABC test has become a key policy goal for labor unions and worker advocates across the country.

• Federal Legislation: The proposed Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act includes a national ABC test that would make it harder to classify workers as contractors under federal labor law. pro_act.
• State-Level Fights: Other states are considering adopting similar ABC tests, while business groups lobby aggressively to maintain more flexible standards.
• The Prop 22 Test Case: The ongoing legal battle over Prop 22 in California is being watched closely nationwide. Its ultimate fate could determine whether the gig economy's “third way” model of providing limited benefits to contractors is a viable long-term strategy.

The traditional 9-to-5 job is no longer the only model of work. The rise of the platform economy, remote work, and artificial intelligence will continue to challenge our legal definitions of “employee” and “employer.” We can expect to see continued legal and legislative struggles over these definitions. As AI-powered platforms begin to manage and direct workers with even less human intervention, new questions about control and the “usual course of business” will arise. The *Dynamex* decision was a pivotal moment, but it is clear that the debate it ignited about the nature of work and the social contract between companies and their workers is far from over.

• abc_test: A three-part test used in California to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
• assembly_bill_5_(ab5): The California law that codified the Dynamex ABC test into the state's Labor Code.
• borello_test: The older, multi-factor test for worker classification in California, focused primarily on the “right to control.”
• class_action_lawsuit: A lawsuit where one person or a small group sues on behalf of a larger group of people with similar claims.
• division_of_labor_standards_enforcement_(dlse): The California state agency, also known as the Labor Commissioner's Office, that adjudicates wage claims.
• employee: A worker who is legally entitled to protections like minimum wage, overtime, and workers' compensation.
• independent_contractor: A self-employed worker who operates their own business and is not entitled to employee protections.
• iwc_wage_orders: Regulations in California that set industry-specific requirements for wages, hours, and working conditions.
• minimum_wage: The lowest hourly rate an employer can legally pay an employee.
• overtime: Work performed beyond a standard 8-hour day or 40-hour week, typically paid at a higher rate.
• payroll_taxes: Taxes paid by employers on behalf of employees, such as Social Security and Medicare.
• proposition_22: A California ballot initiative that classified app-based drivers as independent contractors with some benefits.
• statute_of_limitations: The legal time limit for filing a lawsuit or wage claim.
• vicarious_liability: The legal responsibility of an employer for the actions of their employees.
• worker_misclassification: Illegally classifying an employee as an independent contractor to avoid legal and financial obligations.

• employee_vs_independent_contractor
• wage_and_hour_law
• assembly_bill_5_(ab5)
• proposition_22
• california_labor_code
• workers_compensation
• unemployment_insurance