Arzate v. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc.
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Arzate and Ortiz, Teamsters owner-operators, filed a wage-and-hour class action against Bridge Terminal Transport, alleging employee status.
- Period is November 2003 to December 2007; claims include minimum wage, wages upon discharge, wage statements, and unfair business practices.
- Defendant is a common carrier using owner-operator drivers and had a collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters covering these drivers.
- Plaintiffs signed leases leasing trucks to defendant; leases gave exclusive possession to defendant and labeled independent contractor, though markings and practice suggested employee status.
- Defendant paid two checks (lease and driver wages), issued W-2s, withheld taxes, offered partial health-plan contributions, and issued 1099s for lease payments.
- Court held summary judgment on independent-contractor status was improper and remanded for factual determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent-contractor status under Borello. | Arzate argues Borello factors show employee status. | Bridge Terminal asserts independent-contractor status. | No; triable issues remain; judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (control plus multiple factors determine employee status; not determinative)
- State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Brown, 32 Cal.App.4th 188 (Cal.App.4th 1995) (fact-specific; right of control remains significant but not sole determinant)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (employee status supported by trial evidence of company control)
- Air Couriers Internal v. Employment Development Dept., 150 Cal.App.4th 923 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (drivers treated as company employees for purposes of certain protections)