Posted on September 5th, 2019
Below is a complete transcript of this video.
What’s happening, fellow entrepreneurs? It’s John Fagerholm again. Today I want to get back to the Dynamex case again.
I know I’ve talked about this several times, but there’s some new developments. I thought I would update everybody.
For those of you that don’t know, Dynamex is a case that came down last year and it basically made it almost impossible for anyone to have independent contractors in California.
It’s distinguished, not distinguished, but it clarified something with the ABC test. The problem was that it said even if you have an independent contractor, if they’re providing you a service that you’re providing to your client, then they’re automatically employees and not independent contractors.
It affected trucking mostly, but quite a few industries.
But the worst thing about Dynamex was then a case in the Ninth Circuit that was ruled I think in May sometime, that indicated that Dynamex is retroactive.
Basically, it imposes a penalty on people that were following the law before Dynamex came out and would have no idea that they would in the future break a law. It’s saying as of the date of Dynamex, retroactively, you can be held responsible for a law that didn’t even exist.
Obviously, a crazy ruling and lots of backlash to it. The Ninth Circuit is going to rehear some cases and determine if they actually want to continue to impose that retroactive status of the Dynamex case.
Anyway, just thought I would update everybody on that.
As things happen, I’ll update you guys because this is one of those cases that just really hurts, especially the small business owner who may not be able to afford full-time staff and still needs to provide or still needs resources that are provided by third parties and other entrepreneurs that themselves want to be independent contractors.
Anyway, until next time, be productive. Thanks, everybody.
