A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

New Standard for Employee Classification

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

For years, one of the most common and complex problems in employment litigation involves the classification of a worker as either an employee or an independent contractor. This important distinction has been left unclear for years, making it difficult to determine whether an employer’s designation of a worker as an independent contractor is legal.

However, a recent California case has brought some clearer standards for this legal determination. Clearer standards will minimize unnecessary litigation and protect employees from exploitation.

A Recent Case

According to Forbes online, the California Supreme Court just last week handed down its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In this case, the court did two things that are important going forward: It added a standard for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. An independent contractor must:

  1. Be free from the control of the hirer in the performance of the job,
  2. Perform work that is outside the course of the employer’s normal course of business, AND
  3. Be customarily engaged in independently established work that is similar to the employer’s business.

Further, the court placed the burden of proof on employers in these cases. This means that when a classification in question comes before the court, it is up to the employer to prove that all three of the above standards exist. If the employer cannot prove that every one of the above standards are in place, it is assumed that the worker is indeed an employer and not an independent contractor.

The Benefit for Employees

Most employees would prefer being considered an employee rather than an independent contractor, because the employee classification triggers the legal employment law standards regarding wage and hour laws, overtime hours, insurance, leave and other important protections for employees.

Establishing this new standard and placing the burden of proof on the hiring company, the court has created a notably employee-friendly situation.

You Have Rights Now is the Time to Protect Them

If you are a worker who thinks you might have been inappropriately classified as an independent contractor, there is no better time than right now to exercise your rights. Talk with a lawyer to discuss how you can get the correct classification as an employee and obtain compensation for your losses.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.