Legal

Court Rejects Choice of Law in Driver Agreements

By James Denis

Mar. 8, 2012

Fernando Ruiz, a California driver for Affinity Logistics Corp., signed “independent truckman’s” agreements and equipment lease agreements with Affinity that characterized Ruiz and other drivers as “independent contractors.”

The agreement specified that disputes would be governed by Georgia law. Ruiz filed a lawsuit in California alleging that Affinity misclassified drivers as independent contractors, failed to pay them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, and deprived them of other legally required payments.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California applied California law and held that, since Affinity was incorporated and maintained its business in Georgia, that state’s law would control resolution of Ruiz’s claims. Applying Georgia law, which presumes independent contractor status, the court held that Ruiz was an independent contractor and, therefore, not entitled to the protections of California law applicable to the employment relationship.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling. That court held that California law required the trial court to reject application of Georgia law where doing so would be contrary to a fundamental California policy, and to consider if California had a materially greater interest than Georgia in the dispute.

The 9th Circuit said that “Georgia law also is in direct conflict with a fundamental California policy that seeks to protect its workers.” The court then remanded the case to the trial court to apply California law in determining whether the drivers are independent contractors or employees. Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 9th Cir., No. 10-55581, (Feb. 8, 2012).

IMPACT: Because states have varying rules regarding whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee, employers should be cautious when making that designation.

James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis are partners in the law firm of Barlow, Kobata & Denis, with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Workforce Management, March 2012, p. 8Subscribe Now!

About Workforce.com

blog workforce

We build robust scheduling & attendance software for businesses with 500+ frontline workers. With custom BI reporting and demand-driven scheduling, we help our customers reduce labor spend and increase profitability across their business. It's as simple as that.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Compliance

Minimum Wage by State in 2022 – All You Need to Know

Summary The federal minimum wage rate is $7.25, but the rate is higher in 30 states, along with Washing...

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

workforce blog

Legal

California’s push for a 32-hour workweek explained, and how to prepare

Summary: California is considering a 32-hour workweek bill for businesses with over 500 staff 4 day wee...

32 hour workweek, 4 day workweek, california, legislature, overtime

workforce blog

Legal

A business owner’s guide to restaurant tipping law

Business owners in the restaurant industry are in a unique position when it comes to employee tips. As ...

restaurants, tip laws, tipping