California Supreme Court Limits Employers’ Ability to Characterize Workers as Independent Contractors

JohnQuieroLE - resized [45] 170504_0034_1a_square2Guest Commentary

By John F. Querio, a Partner, and Lacey L. Estudillo, an Appellate Fellow, with Horvitz & Levy LLP.

California courts and administrative agencies have long used a multi-factor common-law test, as summarized by S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989), to determine whether workers are independent contractors or employees under California law.  The employee-independent contractor distinction is important because employee status brings with it a host of burdensome wage and hour and other legal obligations with which the employer must comply, multiplying costs exponentially.

The key factor under the Borello common-law test for determining employment status has traditionally been the right to control the manner and means by which the work is to be performed.  Despite decades of settled jurisprudence on this issue, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. S222732, 2018 WL 1999120 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2018), the California Supreme Court adopted a new test for determining independent-contractor status for purposes of wage and hour obligations under California law. Continue reading “California Supreme Court Limits Employers’ Ability to Characterize Workers as Independent Contractors”

Update: Ninth Circuit Softens its Decision in Flushable Wipes Case

roibal_lucia_webGuest Commentary

By Lucía Roibal, an Associate with Morrison & Foerster LLP in the firm’s San Francisco, CA office. This commentary is reposted with permission, originally appearing on May 17, 2018 in the firm’s Class Dismissed  blog.

On May 9, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion amending its previous decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017).  As noted in a December 4, 2017 post on the 2017 decision, the Ninth Circuit had held that the fact that a plaintiff now knows the “truth” of an allegedly false advertisement does not foreclose injunctive standing.

In its amended Opinion, the panel clarifies its decision and refines the requirements for injunctive standing in the misbranding context in three ways: (1) it confirms that Article III injunctive standing requires plaintiffs to allege an intent to repurchase the product at issue; (2) it changes its previous stance that consumer protection laws would be gutted without injunctive relief; and (3) it holds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a “concrete and particularized” injury as well as redressability. Continue reading “Update: Ninth Circuit Softens its Decision in Flushable Wipes Case”

Circuit Split Grows over Whether Evidence Supportive of Class Certification Must be Admissible

Tager_09181Featured Expert Contributor, Judicial Gatekeeping of Expert Evidence

By Evan M. Tager, a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Mayer Brown LLP, with Carl J. Summers, Counsel with Mayer Brown LLP.

The Supreme Court explained in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes that “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.  A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”  You would think that would mean that plaintiffs seeking class certification must support their motion with admissible evidence.  Indeed, in Dukes the Supreme Court observed that the district court had held that “Daubert did not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action proceedings” and commented: “We doubt that is so.”

Nevertheless, relying on a 1975 Ninth Circuit decision and a pre-Dukes decision of the Eighth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit recently held in Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center that “[i]nadmissibility alone is not a proper basis to reject evidence submitted in support of class certification” and that a district court therefore abused its discretion by declining to consider a declaration “solely on the basis of inadmissibility.”  Continue reading “Circuit Split Grows over Whether Evidence Supportive of Class Certification Must be Admissible”

U.S. Supreme Court to Settle Circuit Split on “Bare Metal Rule” Frequently Invoked in Asbestos Suits

RobertWrightFeatured Expert Contributor, Mass Torts—Asbestos

Robert H. Wright, a Partner with Horvitz & Levy LLP in Los Angeles, CA

On May 14, 2018 the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide a recurring issue in asbestos actions, the “bare-metal” rule.  The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari of four businesses that often face products-liability claims in asbestos actions, CBS Corporation, Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Foster Wheeler LLP and Ingersoll Rand, Inc.  The issue, as framed in the petition, is whether products-liability defendants can be liable “under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell, or distribute.” Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court to Settle Circuit Split on “Bare Metal Rule” Frequently Invoked in Asbestos Suits”

Status Quo at the PTO: High Court Preserves Inter Partes Review

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor, Intellectual Property—Patents

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) lives to see another day (or challenge). On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, which could have wholly invalidated the IPR process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to scrutinize the validity of already-issued patents. Though not the first constitutional challenge to IPR, Oil States marks the first time the Supreme Court has confronted the issue head-on since IPR came into existence five years ago. Continue reading “Status Quo at the PTO: High Court Preserves Inter Partes Review”

False Claims Act Enforcement Tea Leaves Read at WLF Webinar

Fried Frank Of Counsel and author of the leading False Claims Act treatise, John T. Boese (on left), and his partner Douglas W. Baruch, offered insightful analysis on two recent Department of Justice policy documents (the “Granston Memo” and the “Brand Memo”) and their impact on FCA actions by both qui tam relators and federal prosecutors.

The slide presentation Boese and Baruch followed can be downloaded here.

The speakers also authored a February 2018 Working Paper for WLF on three new possible constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which can be found here.

Ruling on Philly Taxis’ Suit vs. Uber, Third Circuit Reaffirms Antitrust Focus on Competition, not Competitors

swisherFeatured Expert Column: Antitrust & Competition Policy — U.S. Department of Justice

By Anthony W. Swisher, a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber Technologies) reinforces the longstanding principle that antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors. The case involved a claim of attempted monopolization levied against Uber, brought by the Philadelphia Taxi Association and a number of individual taxi drivers. The essence of the plaintiffs’ claim was that Uber entered the Philadelphia taxi market without complying with existing municipal regulations, and that as a result, Uber obtained “a stronghold in the Philadelphia taxicab market.”

The Third Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling that plaintiffs failed to state a monopolization claim because they failed to allege a harm to the competitive process, as opposed to individual competitors. Continue reading “Ruling on Philly Taxis’ Suit vs. Uber, Third Circuit Reaffirms Antitrust Focus on Competition, not Competitors”