×
Search

866-540-5505

Se Habla Espanol
Menu
Search

Our Blog

Home/Blog/9th Circuit Denies Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Codification of the ABC Test

9th Circuit Denies Motion to Preliminarily Enjoin Codification of the ABC Test

On October 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the California Attorney General from applying California’s “ABC test,” as codified in California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”), to political canvassers.

Under precedent established in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) to prove workers are independent contractors not subject to wage orders, [1] California hiring entities must satisfy the ABC test, which asks: (A) whether the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; (B) whether the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) whether the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. However, AB 5does not apply to several occupations.

Plaintiffs here, Mobilize the Message LLC, Moving Oxnard Forward Inc., and the Starr Coalition for Moving Oxnard Forward (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), challenged AB 5’s application to political canvassers, as classifying doorknockers and signature gatherers as employees instead of independent contractors would significantly increase Plaintiffs’ operating costs.

Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that A.B. 5 violates the First Amendment because it discriminates against speech based on its content. They argue that because California determines the employment status of canvassers under the ABC test, but classifies direct sales salespersons, newspaper distributors, and newspaper carriers under a different test articulated in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989), the state discriminates based on content and improperly prioritizes commercial speech over political speech.

The majority of the Ninth Circuit panel accepted the Plaintiffs’ assertion that applying AB 5 is likely to increase the chances that doorknockers and signature gatherers will be classified as employees. Employee classification would impose greater costs on Plaintiffs, and as a result, Plaintiffs may not be able to hire as many workers for these positions. However, the panel also held that workplace regulations that incidentally inhibit the expression of political speech do not violate the First Amendment.  The court clarified that AB 5 does not target certain types of speech, but rather applies across California’s economy, so Plaintiffs are not unfairly burdened by the application of the test and do not present a viable claim for content-based discrimination.

The majority ultimately concluded that the ABC test depends on the nature of an individual’s work rather than the speech they use, noting that the Supreme Court has rejected the claim that any examination of speech or expression inherently triggers First Amendment violations.  Accordingly, since Plaintiffs did not successfully establish a First Amendment claim, the Court affirmed the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction against applying AB 5.

Updates will be posted to this blog as the matter progresses. The case caption for this action is Mobilize the Message, LLC v. Bonta, No. 21-55855, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The legal team at Miller Shah LLP has significant experience representing misclassification matters. If you have any questions regarding this subject or this post, please contact Chiharu Sekino (cgsekino@millershah.com) or Mark Xiao (mxiao@millershah.com). The firm can also be reached toll-free at (866) 540-5505.


[1] Wage orders impose regulations regarding minimum wages, maximum hours, and basic working conditions.

Share Post:
facebooktwitterLinkedin

Categories

Archives

Contact
Miller Shah LLP

While this website provides general information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer. To schedule a meeting with an attorney, please call 866-540-5505 or complete the intake form to email us.
Alec J. Berin - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Alfonso Vilaboa - Of Counsel

NJ Hoboken |

Anika S. Keuning - Project Analyst

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Anna D’Agostino - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Betsy Ferling-Hitriz - Legal Assistant

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Bruce D. Parke - Partners

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Caroline Soper - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Christopher A. Miller - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Deborah C. England - Of Counsel

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Edward H. Glenn - Of Counsel

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Edward M. Fitzgerald - Staff Attorney

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

Elena M. DiBattista - Legal Assistant

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Elise M. Wilson - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Eric L. Young - Of Counsel

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Finn M. Mutrux - Office Staff

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

Gina S. Demetriades - Office Staff

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Heidi A. Wendel - Of Counsel

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

James C. Shah - Partners

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

James E. Miller - Partners

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Jayne A. Goldstein - Partners

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Jillian M. Boyce - Office Staff

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Jocelyn McNamara - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Johanna C. Richter - Law Clerk

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

John C. Roberts - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Jonathan Dilger - Office Staff

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Julie M. Capito - Legal Assistant

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Kolin C. Tang - Partners

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Laurie Rubinow - Partners

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Madison Gregg - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Marialisa Samo - Legal Assistant

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Mark Xiao - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Natalie Finkelman Bennett - Partners

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Nathan C. Zipperian - Partners

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Nicholas Day - Of Counsel

NJ Hoboken | 866-540-5505

Nicholas K. Ono - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Raffaele Scalcione - Of Counsel

IT Milan | 866-540-5505

Reilly K. Powers - Project Analyst

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Robert W. Biela - Staff Attorney

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Ronald S. Kravitz - Of Counsel

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Rrita Osmani - Project Analyst

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Shuping Li - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Stephen T. Rutkowski - Law Clerk

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Sue Moss - Legal Assistant

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Sydney D. Finlay - Associate

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Tina Moukoulis - Staff Attorney

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505