Did Dynamex Misclassify Delivery Drivers Under California Law?

A California Supreme Court decision arising from a delivery-driver misclassification dispute reshaped how courts analyze who qualifies as an employee under California wage orders.

Case: Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2018)

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court / California Supreme Court

Case/Docket No.: BC332016 / S222732

Overview of the Original Dynamex Operations West Employment Law Case:

The case began after Dynamex delivery drivers alleged they had been reclassified as independent contractors even though they were still performing essentially the same pickup-and-delivery work they had done when the company treated them as employees. The Supreme Court explained that Dynamex had classified drivers as employees before 2004, then switched to an independent-contractor model after concluding the change would create economic savings. Under the new arrangement, drivers were expected to provide their own vehicles and cover expenses such as fuel, tolls, maintenance, insurance, taxes, and workers’ compensation.

Alleged Violations of California Wage Order No. 9:

According to the opinion, the drivers claimed that this change was more than a label swap. They alleged that Dynamex’s decision to classify them as independent contractors violated California Wage Order No. 9, the Labor Code, and California’s unfair competition law. The complaint asserted claims tied to unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful business practices.

Factors Considered When Determining “Classification” of Workers:

The Court also described several features of the working relationship that made the dispute significant. Dynamex obtained customers, set customer rates, assigned deliveries through its dispatchers, tracked packages, and retained authority over the number and type of deliveries offered to drivers. Some drivers were expected to wear Dynamex shirts and badges, and others were required to place company or customer decals on their vehicles during deliveries. Although drivers had some flexibility in setting schedules and routes, the larger business structure remained centered on Dynamex’s delivery operation.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The main legal problem was not simply whether the drivers won or lost on the facts. The real issue was which legal test California courts should use when deciding whether workers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of California wage orders. Dynamex argued that courts should rely on the more flexible, multifactor standard set forth in Borello. The drivers argued that the wage-order definitions discussed in Martinez v. Combs also applied and offered a broader basis for finding employment status.

Certified Class Based on Wage-Order Definitions:

That disagreement mattered because the trial court certified a class based on the wage-order definitions of “employ” and “employer,” rather than limiting the analysis to the traditional Borello framework. Dynamex challenged that ruling, first by filing a motion to decertify and then by filing a writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal largely agreed with the trial court on the wage-order claims, and the California Supreme Court took the case to decide whether the wage-order “suffer or permit to work” standard could be used to determine employee-versus-independent-contractor status in this setting.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Deciding Whether a Worker is an Employee or Independent Contractor

The California Supreme Court agreed that the wage-order definition could be used and held that the “suffer or permit to work” standard applies when deciding whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the obligations imposed by a California wage order. The Court rejected the argument that this standard should be confined to joint-employer situations. From there, the Court adopted the now-famous ABC test for wage-order claims. Under that test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity proves all three of the following:

A. The worker is free from the hiring entity’s control and direction in performing the work, both under the contract and in practice;

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.

The Court emphasized that if the hiring business fails to prove even one of those three elements, the worker is treated as an employee for purposes of the wage order. It also affirmed the judgment below, concluding that the class certification ruling could stand because the drivers’ claims were sufficiently capable of classwide resolution under the proper understanding of the wage-order standard.

Definitions According to Dynamex: Why Does it Matter?

This case became one of the most important California employment decisions of the last decade because it changed the framework for wage-order misclassification cases. Instead of leaving parties to battle primarily over a loose, totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Court adopted a cleaner and more demanding rule that places the burden on the hiring entity.

That matters in practical terms. Businesses that rely on workers to perform functions at the heart of their operations face a much harder road when trying to classify those workers as independent contractors. For workers, the decision created a more predictable path for challenging misclassification in cases involving overtime, minimum wage protections, meal and rest break obligations, and wage-statement issues under California wage orders. The Court also made clear that wage orders are meant to protect workers, support fair competition, and prevent employers from gaining an edge by using arrangements that strip workers of basic labor protections.

For present-day litigants, Dynamex remains a foundational precedent because it is often the starting point in any California dispute over whether a worker was wrongly treated as an independent contractor under wage-order law.

FAQ About the Dynamex Misclassification Case and the ABC Test

Q: What was the main issue in Dynamex?

A: The core issue was whether Dynamex delivery drivers were properly classified as independent contractors or whether they should have been treated as employees under California wage orders.

Q: Why were the drivers upset with the reclassification?

A: They alleged that after Dynamex changed their status, they were still doing the same work but lost protections associated with employee status, including overtime-related protections and other rights tied to wage-order coverage.

Q: What is the ABC test?

A: It is the three-part test the California Supreme Court adopted in Dynamex for wage-order claims. A hiring entity must prove freedom from control, work outside the usual course of the business, and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independent business of the same nature.

Q: Does a company win if it proves only one or two parts of the ABC test?

A: No. The hiring entity must prove all three parts. If it fails to prove any one of them, the worker is treated as an employee for purposes of the wage order.

Q: Why was part B of the ABC test so important in this case?

A: Because Dynamex was a delivery company, the drivers’ pickup-and-delivery work appeared closely tied to the company’s usual course of business. That made the classification question especially suitable for classwide treatment.

Q: Did the Supreme Court decide every claim in the case under the same standard?

A: No. The Court’s review focused on wage-order-based claims. The opinion noted that the Court of Appeals had treated reimbursement claims under Labor Code section 2802 differently for certification purposes.

Q: Why is Dynamex still important today?

A: Because it remains one of the leading California cases on worker misclassification. Lawyers, workers, and courts still rely on it when evaluating whether a company can lawfully classify someone as an independent contractor for wage-order purposes.

Q: Did the Court say every independent contractor is really an employee?

A: No. The Court expressly said the wage-order standard should not be read so literally as to sweep in traditional independent contractors, such as plumbers or electricians, who operate their own businesses.

Worker-classification disputes can affect far more than job titles. In California, they may shape whether workers are entitled to overtime, wage statements, reimbursement protections, and other basic safeguards under state labor law. If you believe you were classified as an independent contractor even though your work was part of a company’s regular business operations, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can assess whether your rights may have been violated under California employment law.