Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California · 2018 · Corporations

232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2018)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsEmployment classificationWage ordersIndependent contractorsemployee vs independent contractorABC testsuffer or permit to workclass certification

Facts

Dynamex is a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service that, until 2004, classified its California drivers as employees. In 2004, it converted all drivers to independent contractors, requiring them to provide their own vehicles, pay transportation expenses and insurance, and bear their own taxes and workers' compensation costs. Dynamex obtains customers, sets customer rates, negotiates driver pay, assigns on-demand deliveries in its discretion, and generally expects drivers to wear Dynamex shirts and sometimes vehicle decals. The certified class was limited to drivers who personally performed delivery services for Dynamex and did not employ other drivers or perform delivery work for other delivery companies or their own customers during the relevant pay periods.

Issue

For claims arising from obligations imposed by California wage orders, what standard governs whether workers are employees or independent contractors? Specifically, does the wage order's suffer-or-permit-to-work definition apply to that classification question, and if so, what test implements it?

Rule

For purposes of California wage orders, a worker is presumed to be an employee under the wage order's suffer-or-permit-to-work definition unless the hiring entity proves all three parts of the ABC test: (A) the worker is free from the hiring entity's control and direction in performing the work, both under the contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. Failure to prove any one part means the worker is an employee for wage-order purposes.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Sacramento bakery sells custom wedding cakes to the public. It hires Nora Kim to decorate cakes each week, calls her an independent contractor, and lets her choose which days to come in, but the bakery must deliver the finished cakes to its customers under its own brand.

For a claim seeking overtime under a California wage order, which is the strongest analysis of Nora's status?

Explanation. For obligations imposed by a California wage order, the hiring entity bears the burden to prove all three ABC elements. Part B asks whether the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. A bakery that sells custom cakes ordinarily operates through cake decoration as part of its usual business, so failure of part B alone makes Nora an employee for wage-order purposes. A flexible schedule or contractual label does not defeat employee status.