California Labor Law Agreement Reached for Grocers

Los Angeles, CA Negotiations between the grocery chains Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons over California labor law have reportedly paved the way for the striking of a tentative deal, reports the Los Angeles Times.

According to the news source, the negotiators for the grocery chains and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) reached a deal that will prevent a strike of more than 54,000 workers throughout Southern California.

The agreement comes after a number of months of public disagreements, with negotiations ultimately heating up after a recent deadline passed. The sides reportedly worked through the weekend to reach the agreement, which is reportedly for three years, the news source said.

The actual details of the deal were not made available to the public, as union members have received the proposal and still need to vote on it. Union officials said that the contract would be approved if at least 50 percent of the members plus one additional vote ratified the agreement, according to the Times.

In separate statements, representatives from the grocery chains and the union said they were satisfied with the deal that was reached.

"We are pleased to have reached a tentative settlement agreement with the union that continues to preserve good wages, secure pensions and access to quality, affordable healthcare??"while allowing us to be competitive in the marketplace," Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons said in the statement, according to the news source.

Rick Icaza, president of UFCW Local 770 in Orange County, added that the deal "protects grocery workers' jobs and healthcare, and keeps the employers' profitable."

Reuters reports that the dispute in this instance dates back to a 141-day strike in Southern California during 2003 and 2004. The strike, which was the longest work stoppage in the history of the US grocery industry, reportedly cost the chains more than $1 billion in sales.

According to the news source, the strike also had an effect on the loyalty of customers, many of whom flocked to nonunion food vendors including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Target Corp. Additionally, other competitors such as Whole Foods Market and other upscale chains have increased competition.

Andrew Wolf, an analyst for BB&T Capital Markets, told the news source that both sides were likely forced to make compromises to come to the deal, saying it probably involved "mutual pain and compromise."

California Labor Law and Misclassification with the IRS

Oakland, CA If your business uses independent contractors, you would be wise to determine that they aren't misclassified as employees before the IRS knocks at your door. According to federal law and the California Labor Law, "You may be at risk for an employment tax audit," says attorney Leonard Emma of The Law Office of Randall Crane.

There are many temptations for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Emma says the main reasons are the following:

• to shift the cost of employment taxes to workers,
• to avoid paying employee benefit costs, and
• to eliminate responsibilities under employment laws, such as civil rights or wage and hour laws.

"However, employers who are determined to have misclassified their workers as independent contractors risk drastic tax liabilities to the IRS, among other potential liabilities, penalties and costs," warns Emma. "Worker classification is a high-stakes decision that affects all industries. The IRS and courts have found workers to be employees in job positions ranging from software engineer to truck driver and from real estate loan officer to exotic dancer."

The IRS recently stepped up employment tax audits in an attempt to close the tax gap, including audits in California, and one of the areas targeted for review is the classification of workers as independent contractors instead of employees. If your business uses independent contractors, you should consult with an employment attorney to evaluate your exposure.

Emma says that the IRS can determine whether your independent contractors are employees and demand unpaid employment taxes, so it's advisable that you examine how you have classified your workers sooner than later.

The IRS method for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees is complicated??"again, an attorney can help you navigate both the IRS "test" and the California labor code. Emma explains that the IRS considers a multi-factor test based on how much control the employer exerts over the worker. "The multi-factor test is broken down into three general categories: (1) Financial Control, (2) Behavioral Control, and (3) Type of Relationship. The factors include, among other things:

• the extent of instructions provided to the worker
• the extent of training provided to the worker
• the extent to which the worker has unreimbursed expenses
• the extent of the worker's investment
• the extent to which the worker makes services available to the relevant market
• how the business pays the worker
• the extent to which the worker can realize a profit or loss
• written contracts describing the relationship the parties intended to create
• whether the business provides the worker with employee-type benefits, such as insurance, a pension plan, vacation pay, or sick pay
• the permanency of the relationship
• the extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company

The test is applied on a case-by-case basis. Businesses that misclassify their workforce are subject to retroactive tax withholding, penalties and interest," says Emma, who adds that all hope is not lost if your business is audited and a tax examiner determines your workers are misclassified. "You may contest the finding and seek relief under the safe harbor provided by Revenue Code Section 530."

The Section 530 Safe Harbor

"If your business has been consistent in treating workers as independent contractors and has a reasonable basis for doing so, you may be eligible for 'safe harbor' relief under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978," says Emma. "For employment tax purposes, a business may treat an individual as an independent contractor rather than an employee if:

• The business does not treat any other individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee for purposes of employment taxes for any period; and

• All required Federal tax returns are filed by the business on a basis consistent with its treatment of the individual as an independent contractor (e.g., using Form 1099); and

• The business has a 'reasonable basis' for not treating the individual as an employee."

IMPORTANT NOTE: Section 530 provides relief from payment federal employment taxes only but not, for example, lawsuits from workers.

Increasingly, worker classification is garnering more attention in the state of California. Many state officials are facing record budget deficits so they are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors. "Well-intentioned businesses will continue to get caught in the crossfire," says Emma, "and the financial exposure can be drastic."

If your business uses independent contractors, you should consult with an attorney to conduct an audit and evaluate your exposure.

Court: Grocery Worker Regulation Does Not Violate California Labor Law

Los Angeles, CA The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a city law that strives to protect grocery workers in the state is not a violation of California labor code, reports The Associated Press.

According to the news source, the California Grocers Association had sued the city of Los Angeles after it adopted a regulation that hindered the ability of companies to replace workers under new ownership.

The 2005 grocery "worker retention" regulation was allegedly conflicting with other employment laws in the state and the rest of the country, the association claimed in the lawsuit.

However, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the regulation was "fully consistent" with both federal and state legislation, according to the news source. The decision reportedly represented a reversal of two previous rulings that had been made in lower courts.

"This is an important victory for tens of thousands of grocery workers who now don't have to worry about losing their jobs simply because of a corporate ownership change," said Roxana Tynan, deputy director of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, reports the news source.

The news source reported that a call and e-mail sent to the association was not immediately returned.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the law is one of a number of regulations in California requiring companies to maintain workforces for a certain period of time after ownership changes hands.

The law in Los Angeles reportedly covered grocery stores in the city of at least 15,000 square feet, with new owners needing to hire back most previous employees for at least 90 days after the facility became operational under the new ownership.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, in writing for the court, said that the law did not interfere with other regulations and that it "applies equally to unionized and nonunionized workplaces," according to the news source.

"It does not selectively preserve or favor unionization or unionized workers; it simply preserves, temporarily, the status quo, whatever that might be," Werdegar explained.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, similar laws are in effect in other California cities including San Jose, Oakland, Emeryville and Berkeley, with some cities extending the regulations to hotel and airport workers.

Theatres in California among Those Cited for Labor Law Violations

St. Louis, MO As in any state, California labor law co-exists with federal law in an effort to ensure workers are treated fairly and remain safe on the job. In a recent case involving underage workers in California and other states, violations were found under jurisdiction of federal labor law. However, while the California labor code was not cited, labor law in California was impacted nonetheless.

In this particular case, the operators of three large national cinema chains were hammered by the US Department of Labor for alleged violations of child labor laws. Theatres operated by Regal Cinemas Inc., Marcus Theatres Corp. and Wehrenberg Inc. have already paid fines relating to allegations that teenagers were allowed to work too many hours and operated dangerous machinery, in contravention of child labor laws.

The 27 theatres investigated are located in nine states, including California. The other alleged offences were described as occurring in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

According to the March 2 edition of the Columbia Daily Tribune, about 160 young employees were allowed or mandated to perform hazardous jobs requiring the use of machinery that carried some risk. The operation of motor vehicles, paper balers, trash compactors and power-driven mixers while baking were all cited as contravening the youth employment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The US Department of Labor pointed out that 17 hazardous jobs are identified, under law, as inappropriate for workers under the age of 18. Times of day, and the number of hours worked are also restricted under the law, according to the Labor Department. Marcus Theatres, according to a Labor Department release, failed to honor those provisions.

Fines paid by the three corporations totaled $277,000. Regal paid the largest bill, at $158,400. All three companies??"including Regal, which is billed as the largest with 6,683 screens??"were cited for allowing youths to load and operate trash compacters.

Marcus, which paid fines totaling $93,995, and Wehrenberg at $25,080, were both cited for allegations that youth workers were allowed to operate motor vehicles.

The types of motor vehicles were not disclosed.

"The penalties imposed as a result of these violations should serve as a wake-up call to movie theatre owners and other employers," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a statement. "Businesses that employ minors are legally and ethically obligated to abide by child labor standards and ensure youth are protected on the job."

Adult, as well as underage workers in California are protected by federal labor laws??"as noted above??"as well as provisions entrenched in California state labor laws, all designed to protect the rights and the safety of workers.

California Labor Law: Work-related E-mails Trump Client-Attorney Privilege

Sacramento, CA When it comes to sending e-mails, it's a good idea for both employee and employer to check the company manual regarding computer usage policies before using e-mails sent from the workplace as evidence in a court of law, which could spell a violation of the California labor law.

The case of Holmes v. Petrovich demonstrates the importance of an employer's well-written communications and computer policy, and at the same time, how it would also benefit an employee to brush up on company policy before, say, sending e-mails to your attorney about perceived harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

In June 2004, Gina Holmes, the plaintiff, was hired as an executive assistant for Paul Petrovich and Petrovich Development Company, LLC, the defendant. About one month later, Holmes told Petrovich she was pregnant and requested a six-week maternity leave in December, which she later revised to a request for a four-month maternity leave starting in November. Petrovich wasn't thrilled with this news.

Petrovich and Holmes exchanged a number of e-mails, with Petrovich saying that he felt taken advantage of, but at the same time, he did not intend to violate any laws. (Discrimination due to pregnancy is in strict violation of the California labor law.)

Petrovich's e-mail to Holmes said that "I need some honesty. How pregnant were you when you interviewed with me and what happened to six weeks? . . . That is an extreme hardship on me, my business and everyone else in the company. You have rights for sure and I am not going to do anything to violate any laws, but I feel taken advantage of and deceived for sure."

In her e-mail to Petrovich, Holmes explained that she didn't tell him about her pregnancy sooner because she had previously had two miscarriages and wanted to make sure that this time the baby would be carried to term.

Holmes also e-mailed an attorney from her work e-mail account indicating that she felt she was working in a hostile environment and also e-mailed Petrovich to inform him that his feelings regarding her pregnancy left her with no alternative but to end her employment.

But Petrovich was concerned that Holmes would quit and had already forwarded her e-mail to HR??"before she gave notice.

Next up, Holmes filed a suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, violation of privacy rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Trial

At trial, the jury was shown several e-mails between Holmes and her attorney. Holmes argued that these e-mails were attorney-client privileged. The trial court, however, ruled that Holmes's e-mails, sent on a company computer, were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because they were not private; furthermore, company policy was in black and white and stated that:

- Company technology resources should be used only for company business and employees are prohibited from sending or receiving personal e-mails;
- Employees have no right to privacy for personal information created on company computers;
- E-mail is not private communication;
- The Company may inspect all files or messages at any time; and
- The Company would periodically monitor technology resources for compliance with Company policy.

Holmes sent the e-mails to her attorney even though she had read and signed the company's express computer technology resource policy that governed her usage of the company computer and e-mail account, after she was hired. Specifically,

- She had been told of the company's policy that its computers were to be used only for company business and that employees were prohibited from using them to send or receive personal e-mail;
- She had been warned that the company would monitor its computers for compliance with this company policy and thus might "inspect all files and messages ... at any time;" and
- She had been explicitly advised that employees using company computers to create or maintain personal information or messages "have no right of privacy with respect to that information or message."

After the Sacramento Superior Court, Judge Chang, granted summary adjudication on the discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination causes of action, a jury found for the defendants on the two remaining causes of action, i.e., violation of the right to privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Holmes appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

On appeal, the court described the communications as "akin to consulting her lawyer in her employer's conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open, so that any reasonable person would expect that their discussion of her complaints about her employer would be overheard by him."

State Supreme Court: Richmond Did Not Violate California Labor Law

San Francisco, CA The state Supreme Court ruled recently that the city of Richmond did not violate civil rights or California labor law when it laid off 18 firefighters when the city was facing the potential of bankruptcy in 2003, the Contra Costa Times reports.

The decision reportedly affirms previous lower court rulings as well as the Public Employee Relations Board's decision to reject a claim arguing that Richmond violated its contract with the International Association of Firefighters, the news source said.

According to state law, public entities are allowed to lay workers off due to economic reasons, but they need to bargain the effects of reducing the workforce, including the potential consequences facing the workers remaining.

Local 188 of the International Association of Firefighters reportedly argued that the layoff of the firefighters adversely affected the safety of the workers, and as a result, should constitute a need for bargaining.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that government employers still need to negotiate over decisions to carry out layoffs.

Car Dealerships and California Labor Law: Get a Signed Contract

San Dimas, CA "I know something about California Labor Law," says Ray, a former sales manager for a Toyota dealership. "My general manager figured that by eliminating my position they could save money - and he hasn't even given me my final paycheck, which is against the California labor code."

Adding insult to injury, Ray says his GM talked him out of a good job at the Toyota dealership to work at the Nissan store, even though it meant driving 110 miles each day to work. And he was given a verbal promise that no changes would be made - his job was secure.

"In my position as the general sales manager, I was in charge of the volume of sales and Nissan would gratify the dealership by their volume," explains Ray. "I would be paid a Nissan factory incentive and I achieved every imaginable sales goal possible - no question they owed me.

"This past September, after working there for eight months, I got to work at 8:00 am and my GM told me that we needed to sell nine new cars that day. At 5:30 pm he called me into his office and said he was making changes and had to let me go. Of course I asked him why; I hit every sales goal. 'At least give me vacation pay,' I said. But he said I hadn't been there a year so I wasn't entitled to anything.

"What about severance pay? 'I don't know what severance pay is,' he replied. I explained it to him and he said I should call him back the next day. He wanted me to sign some forms but I refused, then he handed me my final draw against my commissions. 'When we close the month I will figure out how much money you have coming,' was his parting remark.

"'And don't forget to take care of the Nissan factory incentive,' I said. No answer. I called the next day about the severance pay. 'I talked to my partners and you are getting nothing,' he said. 'What about my vacation pay and bonus?' Nothing. I didn't even get a final check. They are supposed to give you a monthly statement regarding how much in commissions and incentives you are owed, but I didn't get a dime. I did get a check for $24.95 - a reimbursement for balloons I bought for a store promotion.

"As well, the GM favored a girl that he wanted to make manager. I guess that is sexual discrimination but I'm not trying to sue them; I just want my final pay check, including bonuses, vacation pay and a small amount of severance pay. And all that traveling time? He didn't even pay for my gas.

"I think this dealership breaks labor laws constantly. Salesmen put in an eight-hour shift and never get time for lunch. If they don't make enough commission based on minimum wage, the company has to top it, but that's a whole other story. Anyway, by the will of God, I got another job. I don't burn people like these guys."

Unfortunately, Ray can forget about severance pay. California does not require employers to give severance pay unless you and your employer have a signed employment contract, your employer has an employee policy handbook, or your union has rules or a collective bargaining agreement that state otherwise. A verbal agreement may not be sufficient. But Ray is entitled to receive his final check??"withholding his check is a California labor law violation.

As for vacation pay, Ray should speak with a wage and hour attorney. According to California Department of Industrial Relations (DLSE), the Nissan store isn't violating the California labor code??"vacation pay doesn't have to be paid for the first year:

DLSE's enforcement policy does not preclude an employer from providing a specific period of time at the beginning of the employment relationship during which an employee does not earn any vacation benefits. This could apply to a probationary or introductory period, and can even apply to the whole first year of employment.
Such a provision in a vacation plan will only be recognized, however, if it is not a subterfuge (phony reason) and in fact, no vacation is implicitly earned or accrued during that first year or other period. For example, a plan with the following provisions would be an obvious subterfuge and not recognized as valid:

- Year 1: No vacation
- Year 2: 4 weeks vacation
- Year 3: 2 weeks vacation

The DLSE also states that under California law, "…if the employee has not used all of his or her earned and accrued vacation, the employer must pay the employee at his or her final rate of pay for all of his or her earned and accrued and unused vacation days. Because paid vacation benefits are considered wages, such pay must be included in the employee's final paycheck.

Lesson learned: try to get a signed contract from your employer - don't rely on verbal agreements, no matter how great your new boss seems to be.

California Labor Law Requires That Employees Are Reimbursed for Mileage and More

San Dimas, CA: "Events at work escalated yesterday when my boss refused to reimburse me for mileage and other expenses," says Jannise, a commissioned sales rep with Specialty Apparel at Unifirst Corporation." If this isn't a California labor law case, I don't know what is."

Jannise says that refusing to pay her expenses is just one tactic her employers are using so that she will eventually quit and they won't have to pay unemployment benefits. She has also been dealing with harassment, including being accused of lying and cheating??"another violation of the California labor code??"for well over a year. "I can sell ice cubes to Eskimos but there isn't enough money to keep me here," she says.

A hostile work environment has taken its toll on her. "I meet their demands and gather documentation to prove I am not lying, but I still have to get my work done," says Jannise, who is on the verge of crying. "Now I work 60??"70 hours a week, including all the time it takes to defend myself. I can hardly think straight; I'm sick to my stomach and can't even eat or sleep properly.

"My bosses have been misappropriating my commissions by listing them under general sales and other names," adds Jannise. "Accounts that I brought in weren't even listed in my name. I eventually got that issue cleared up, but later found out that I am not alone and sales reps in the Northern California offices are getting ripped off. Not only are we not getting our credits due, it looks like we aren't doing anything, which has created an atmosphere of harassment and retaliation. I know that my bosses are trying to prove that I am lying on my reports, which I am not.

"I am paid a base salary and commission. This past year, after they got their hands out of my pockets, I went to 93 percent quota while the other reps in my office are about 10??"20 percent (110 percent gets you the President's Club). I brought the company new business from San Jose to San Diego. I am good but it doesn't matter??"I have a target on my back.

"I have worked here for three-and-a-half years and never has my expense report been sent back or denied, and my mileage was always covered. I turned in my mileage expense report and a dinner expense in September and they denied it: I drove to Palm Springs for new business but they said they didn't want business there (which was an about-face) and then they put me under investigation. They said I was lying.

"I believe they are using these tactics so I will eventually quit, because they have no grounds to fire me. Even though California is an "at will employment" state, I could apply for unemployment if they fired me but they don't want to pay for that."

Jannise is correct??"according to the California Labor Code §2802, California employers are required to reimburse their employees for expenses, including mileage expenses, incurred in the course of employment. This requirement also applies to commissioned sales reps. Commonly reimbursed business-related expenses incurred by sales persons include:

- training and seminar costs
- mileage
- cell phone expenses
- telephone charges
- postage and other office supply expenses
- advertising costs
- subscriptions
- business lunches
- costs associated with transaction errors; and
- costs to settle disputes with customers

If an employer fails to reimburse the employee, the employer may be held responsible for the employee's out-of-pocket costs plus interest from the date the employee incurred the expense as well as the employee's legal fees and costs to collect the un-reimbursed expenses. As for as the other allegations, Jannise may not have to deal with a hostile work environment for much longer??"she is currently looking for another job, and an attorney.

Can California Labor Code Computers Not Keep Up?

Sacramento, CA A California labor law issue that's been simmering for years in the Golden State appears to pit state employees against elected officials, some with ties to unions. At the end of the day, it seems, California labor employment law is only as effective as the computers that regulate it.

According to the 7/19/10 issue of the Los Angeles Times, the California Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision in 2003 that state workers should be paid no more than the federal minimum wage during a budget impasse.

There have been lots of those lately, as the state limps from one budget crisis to another.

At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, former State Controller Steve Westly indicated that a decades-old computer system could not be easily re-programmed to accommodate the change. However, he assured the Court that compliance with the May 2003 ruling could happen by September of that year.

Seven years later, it still hasn't happened.

There is little doubt that the California labor law computer system is decades out of date. According to the LA Times, current Controller John Chiang recently released a three-month study claiming that it would take in excess of two years and nearly $8.7 million to re-program the system to reflect changes in minimum wage. Given that the entire system is to be replaced in 2012, such a revision would make little sense.

However, critics of the status quo claim that the Controller's computer system has already been revised to halt the pay of elected officials and their appointed staffs during a budget impasse. The system then reimburses those affected in withheld wages once a budget is signed. There have been other changes and updates over the years as well.

It was also noted that labor unions contributed millions of dollars to Chiang's election campaign in 2006 and have so far provided $350,000 for his current campaign. A pay reduction to minimum wage for state employees would in theory affect a lot of unionized workers.

In fairness, former Controller Westly also claimed there were technical obstacles to the requested change, given the inadequacies of the current system.

However, in a ruling last year Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley wrote that Chiang's argument was "long on qualifiers and conclusions, and conspicuously short on facts." He added that "many of the Controller's objections seem to relate to whether the [minimum wage] should be implemented, rather than whether it can be implemented."

On July 16 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette denied a request from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for an injunction compelling Controller Chiang to lower state salaries while there is no budget. But he ordered the two sides back to court in August to argue the feasibility of reprogramming the computers to comply with the California labor code in this instance.

California Labor Law: Misclassified Independent Contractors

San Francisco, CA Employers should think twice before misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid paying employee benefits, overtime, meal compensation and business-related expenses under California labor law. On July 13, 2010, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that employers cannot use choice-of-law contracts to avoid California labor regulations.

By classifying their employees as independent contractors, employers can also avoid payments such as payroll taxes, workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, social security and even minimum wage. And many employers get away with misclassifying employees because there is no specific definition of the term "independent contractor."

According to the California's Department of Industrial Relations (DLSE), "One must look to the interpretations of the courts and enforcement agencies to decide if in a particular situation a worker is an employee or independent contractor. In handling a matter where employment status is an issue, that is, employee or independent contractor, DLSE starts with the presumption that the worker is an employee."

That is exactly what happened this week when the court held that, although workplace contracts may be subject to out-of-state law, actual workplace terms and conditions affecting workers in California are governed by California statutes.

The decision stemmed from three California truck workers who said they were improperly classified as independent contractors and denied employee benefits, including overtime, business-related expenses and meal compensation. Eagle Freight Systems (EGL) required the workers to sign contracts acknowledging their status as independent contractors subject to the labor laws of Texas. California's multi-faceted test of employment, however, showed an employment relationship between the drivers and EGL. As well, the Internal Revenue Service (EGL's request) and the Employment Development Department of California (plaintiff Mohit Narayan's request) determined that Narayan was an employee for federal tax purposes.

EGL might have considered a similar case in 2008, where FedEx settled a California labor lawsuit and agreed to pay $26.8M in a worker classification dispute. The case originated in 1999 when employees of RPS (later to become FedEx Ground) claimed lost overtime and expense reimbursements because of their classification as independent contractors. Critics said the settlement showed that the drivers proved their case in California.

Two years earlier a small courier business, JKH Enterprises, had reclassified its drivers as independent contractors, which resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,000 per worker. According to the DLSE, "JKH unsuccessfully challenged the hearing officer's decision …and the decision is now final and authority for future enforcement actions by the Labor Commissioner and private parties.

"All employers are urged to be aware of this important decision and the myriad consequences of misclassification of employees including:

• Stop orders and penalty assessments pursuant to Labor Code section 3710.1;
• Liability for overtime premium, meal period pay, and other remedies available to employees under the Labor Code and Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission;
• Exposure for tort liability for injuries suffered by employees when workers compensation insurance is not secured (LC section 3706);
• Exposure for unfair business practices (B&P section 17200);
• Tax liability and penalties;
• Criminal liability (LC section 3700.5)

"All California businesses that have, or are considering, utilizing independent contractors to regularly perform work that is integral to the business of the company, should both seek qualified legal advice and carefully review the JKH decision."

Did EGL take into consideration the FedEx and JKH settlements?