On This Page
The ABC Test: California Labor Code Section 2775
California Labor Code Section 2775 codifies the landmark Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 decision. This law establishes a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an employee unless the hiring entity can demonstrate that ALL THREE of the following prongs are satisfied:
Prong A: Control
The hiring entity does not control the manner and means of accomplishing the work.
What This Means:
This prong examines whether the company exercises control over how the work is performed, not just what work is performed. Control can be actual or potential.
Examples of Control:
- Setting work schedules or hours
- Dictating work methods or procedures
- Requiring specific tools or equipment provided by the company
- Direct supervision or oversight of work performance
- Setting performance standards beyond just final results
- Requiring training on how to perform work
- Controlling where work is performed (office, worksite, etc.)
Court Perspective:
Courts look beyond contracts to the actual practice. Even if a contract states an independent contractor relationship, if the company exercises control in practice, Prong A may not be satisfied. The inability to control is what matters.
Prong B: Scope of Work
The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or occupation of the same type as the work performed for the hiring entity.
What This Means:
This prong asks: Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established business in the same field? The worker must have an independent business, not just the ability to do side work.
Examples Meeting Prong B:
- A licensed electrician who maintains their own electrical contracting business and takes jobs from multiple clients
- A graphic designer who operates a design studio and serves various clients
- An accountant with their own CPA practice serving multiple businesses
Court Perspective:
This prong is often the most difficult for workers to satisfy. Simply having a business license or doing occasional side work is insufficient. The worker must be actively and customarily engaged in an independent business in the same field.
Prong C: Core Business
The work performed is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.
What This Means:
If the work the person performs is the company's core business (what the company primarily does), they cannot be an independent contractor under California law, even if Prongs A and B are met.
Examples Where Work IS Core Business:
- Delivery drivers for a delivery company
- Drivers for a ride-sharing platform
- Assembly line workers for a manufacturer
- Warehouse workers for a logistics company
Examples Where Work Is NOT Core Business:
- A plumber hired by a tech company to fix pipes in their office
- A marketing consultant hired by a manufacturing company
- An IT consultant retained by a law firm for specialized technical work
Court Perspective:
Courts examine whether the work is integral to the company's business operations. If the company couldn't function without that work, it's core to the business.
Key Point: ALL THREE prongs must be satisfied for someone to be lawfully classified as an independent contractor under California Labor Code Section 2775. If even one prong is not met, the worker is presumed to be an employee.
The Borello Test: Common Law Multi-Factor Analysis
Before California adopted the ABC Test, courts used the Borello Test from S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989). While the ABC Test is now the primary framework under Labor Code Section 2775, the Borello Test remains relevant for:
- Analyzing independent contractor status in cases predating the ABC Test
- Supplementary analysis when the ABC Test factors are unclear
- Certain industry-specific situations and exemptions
The Borello Test is a holistic, context-specific analysis that weighs multiple factors to determine the most likely character of a working relationship. No single factor is dispositive; courts balance them all together.
1. Control Over Work Manner and Means
The degree to which the putative employer controls the details of how work is performed. Greater control suggests employment; independence suggests contracting.
2. Right to Control the Result Only
Does the employer control only the final product/result, or also the process? Controlling the result alone favors contractor status.
3. Payment Method and Frequency
Employees typically receive regular, fixed wages. Contractors are often paid per project, per piece, or with payment contingent on completion.
4. Provision of Tools and Equipment
Who provides tools, materials, and equipment? Employer provision suggests employment; worker provision suggests contracting.
5. Location of Work
Work performed on the employer's premises under employer's control suggests employment. Off-site, independent work location may suggest contracting.
6. Duration of the Relationship
Ongoing, permanent relationships suggest employment. Short-term, project-based work may suggest contracting. However, long-term contractor relationships exist.
7. Skill Required
Highly specialized or skilled work, especially requiring individual judgment, may suggest contracting. Routine work suggests employment.
8. Company vs. Independent Business
Does the worker operate an independent business or business-like enterprise? Operating a recognized business favors contractor status.
9. Integral to Core Business
Is the work integral to the employer's core operations? Work integral to the business suggests employment.
10. Benefits and Protections
Receipt of health insurance, paid time off, or other employee benefits suggests employment. Independent contractors typically provide their own.
Borello Approach: Courts evaluate the totality of circumstances. Even if some factors point to contractor status, a preponderance of factors pointing to employment means the worker is likely an employee.
Key Factors Courts Examine in Classification Cases
Beyond the ABC Test and Borello factors, California courts examine these specific elements when analyzing worker classification:
Control of Work Performance
How Courts Apply It: Courts examine whether the company specifies how work is performed, provides training, sets work standards beyond just final results, or supervises the worker during work. Companies may argue they "just want results," but if they dictate methods, require meetings, or enforce processes, this indicates control.
Evidence: Work schedules, supervision records, training materials, performance evaluations, policy manuals, email communications directing work methods.
Tools, Equipment, and Investment
How Courts Apply It: Courts examine who provides essential tools and equipment. If the company provides software, computers, office space, and materials, this suggests employment. Independent contractors typically invest in their own resources. However, some independent contractors use provided tools (like Uber drivers using the platform).
Evidence: Equipment lists, software licenses, office lease agreements, initial setup costs, investment records, asset ownership documentation.
Schedule and Hours
How Courts Apply It: If the company sets specific hours, requires presence at certain times, or controls when work is performed, this strongly indicates employment. Independent contractors typically control their own schedule, though they must meet deadlines.
Evidence: Time sheets, schedule assignments, flexibility in choosing hours, ability to work for competitors, work calendar requirements.
Exclusivity and Competition
How Courts Apply It: Courts examine whether the worker can work for competitors simultaneously. If a company requires exclusivity or restricts the worker from competing, this indicates employment. Independent contractors typically work for multiple clients in the same field.
Evidence: Non-compete agreements, client/customer restrictions, statements about working for competitors, simultaneous relationships with other companies.
Relationship to Core Business
How Courts Apply It: If the work is what the company primarily does, the worker is likely an employee. If the work is peripheral or supplemental, contractor status may be more plausible. A delivery company's drivers perform core work; a tech company's janitor performs peripheral work.
Evidence: Company mission statements, job descriptions, budget allocations, company branding around the work, revenue generation from the work.
Independent Business or Trade
How Courts Apply It: Courts assess whether the worker operates an independent business. This includes holding a business license, maintaining a separate office, advertising to the public, serving multiple clients, and undertaking financial risk.
Evidence: Business license, business cards, website/marketing, multiple clients, separate bank account, business insurance, tax filings showing self-employment income.
Employee Benefits
How Courts Apply It: Employees typically receive health insurance, paid time off, retirement contributions, and unemployment insurance. Independent contractors receive none of these. Provision of benefits is strong evidence of employment.
Evidence: Benefit plan documents, health insurance enrollment, retirement plan participation, paid time off policies, workers' compensation coverage.
Tax Treatment
How Courts Apply It: Tax classification alone does not determine employment status, but it is a factor. W-2 status suggests employment; 1099 status suggests contracting. However, misclassified workers often receive 1099s despite being employees.
Evidence: IRS Forms W-2 or 1099-NEC, tax return filings, payroll records, Social Security withholding.
Termination Rights
How Courts Apply It: Employees can be terminated at-will or only per contract terms. If the company can terminate at any time without cause, this suggests employment (at-will employment). Independent contractors typically have explicit contract terms regarding termination.
Evidence: Written contracts, termination agreements, at-will employment statements, notice requirements, cause definitions.
Financial Risk and Investment
How Courts Apply It: Independent contractors bear financial risk and invest in their business. They may lose money if a project is unprofitable. Employees are paid regardless of profit. Significant personal investment in equipment, marketing, or infrastructure suggests contracting.
Evidence: Equipment purchases, liability insurance, business licenses, marketing expenses, investment in workspace, vehicles or specialized technology.
Common Exemptions from the ABC Test
California Labor Code Section 2775 includes several exemptions where the ABC Test does not apply. These categories may be classified as independent contractors under different standards.
Licensed Professionals
Licensed professionals, including physicians, surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, psychologists, lawyers, and accountants, may satisfy different criteria for independent contractor classification.
Requirements: Must hold active, valid professional license and primarily serve clients outside the hiring entity.
Business-to-Business (B2B) Contracts
Contracts between two businesses may have different standards if certain conditions are met.
Requirements:
- Both parties must be separate registered businesses
- Both must have authorized representatives signing the contract
- Contract must be in writing with specific language
- The contractor may negotiate rates
Real Estate Agents and Brokers
Real estate agents and brokers licensed under California law may be classified as independent contractors if specific statutory requirements are met.
Requirements: Must hold active real estate broker license and be licensed under California law.
Referral Agencies and Direct Sales
Limited exemptions exist for certain referral arrangements and direct sales.
Requirements: Must meet specific statutory conditions regarding referral-only relationships.
Labor Code Section 650.5: Exempted Occupations
Certain occupations are specifically exempted from wage and hour protections and may be classified differently.
Examples: Certain salaried employees (earning above threshold), commissioned sales employees, and other specified occupations. However, exemption from wage and hour laws does not necessarily mean independent contractor classification.
Important: Even if a worker falls into an exempt category, they may still be required to be classified as an employee. Exemptions are narrow and strictly construed by California courts. The ABC Test is the default framework for most workers.
Potential Remedies for Worker Misclassification
Educational Note: This section describes potential remedies available under California law if a court finds worker misclassification. This is general information only and does not apply to any specific situation. The availability and amount of remedies depend on the facts of each case, when the misclassification occurred, and applicable legal theories.
Common Remedies
Back Wages
Full compensation for all unpaid wages the worker should have received as an employee. This covers the difference between what they were paid and what they should have been paid under wage and hour laws.
Overtime Compensation
Unpaid overtime at the appropriate rates (typically 1.5 times the regular rate for hours over 8 per day or 40 per week; 2 times the regular rate for hours over 12 per day or 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day). Employers cannot offset overtime with 1099 payments.
Meal and Rest Break Premiums
Wage penalties for each missed meal break or rest break. Employees are entitled to one 10-minute paid rest break for every 4 hours of work and an unpaid 30-minute meal break for every 5 hours of work.
Expense Reimbursement
California Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in discharging their duties. This includes mileage, equipment, tools, and other work-related expenses.
Health Benefits and Contributions
Back contributions to health insurance, dental, vision, and other benefits the worker should have received. Some claims may include the cost of obtaining replacement coverage.
Statutory Penalties
California Labor Code Section 226.8 imposes penalties of $5,000 to $25,000 per worker per violation for willful misclassification. Additional penalties may apply under Division 4 of the Labor Code.
Damages for Unfair Business Practices
Claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200) may allow recovery of actual damages and restitution.
Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Workers may be eligible to claim back unemployment insurance benefits if they were misclassified during the period in question, though these are typically state-administered claims.
Workers' Compensation Benefits
Misclassified workers may be entitled to workers' compensation coverage for work-related injuries or illnesses that occurred during the period of misclassification.
Attorney's Fees and Costs
In wage and hour cases, if the worker prevails, they may recover attorney's fees and litigation costs from the employer. This encourages employees to pursue valid claims.
Interest on Unpaid Wages
Back wages typically accrue interest at the prevailing legal rate, increasing the total recovery as time passes.
Important Disclaimer: This guide is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this guide. Employment law is constantly evolving - statutes are amended, new regulations are adopted, and court decisions can change the interpretation of existing law at any time. While we strive to keep this guide accurate, we cannot guarantee that all information reflects the most current state of the law. This guide may not address recent legislative changes, pending regulations, or new case law that could affect your rights or obligations. Every situation is unique. If you need legal advice about your specific situation, please consult a qualified California employment attorney. Do not rely on this guide as a substitute for professional legal counsel.
Statutes of Limitations: General Information
Claims related to worker misclassification have time limits for filing. The following represents general educational information about typical timeframes under California law. Do not rely on these timeframes for any specific situation - consult an attorney to understand the applicable deadline for your claim.
Statutes of Limitations Overview
Enforcement Options
Workers who believe they have been misclassified may want to consult with an employment attorney to understand their options.
General Timeframe: Typically 3 years from the date wages were owed, though some claims may be limited to 1 year.
Civil Action (Wage and Hour Class Action)
Workers may file civil lawsuits in court for wage and hour violations.
General Timeframe: 2-4 years depending on the legal theory:
- Breach of contract: 4 years
- Wage and hour violations: 3 years (willful) or 2 years (non-willful)
- Unfair business practices: 4 years
Labor Code Section 226.8 Penalties
Claims for penalties related to willful misclassification.
General Timeframe: Follows the underlying wage claim statute of limitations.
PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) Claim
Workers may bring claims on behalf of themselves and other employees for Labor Code violations.
General Timeframe: 1 year from the last date of violation or from the date the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known about the violation.
Tolling and Extensions
The statute of limitations may be "tolled" (paused) in certain circumstances, such as when the worker did not know about the violation or was prevented from suing. Different rules apply to different types of claims.
Critical Important Notice
Do not rely on the timeframes above for your specific situation. Statutes of limitations are complex and depend on:
- The exact date wages were owed
- Whether the employer's conduct was "willful"
- When you discovered the violation (tolling)
- What legal theories apply to your situation
- Whether you're in court or at the Labor Commissioner
- Federal vs. state claim requirements
Contact an employment attorney immediately to understand the applicable deadline for your potential claim. Deadlines are strict and cannot be extended in most cases.
Questions About Your Classification?
If you believe you may be misclassified or have questions about your employment status under California law, consult a qualified employment attorney who can review your specific circumstances and advise you on your rights and options.
Consult an Employment Attorney