Curry v. Equilon Enters., LLC
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Curry worked as a station manager from July 2003 (for ARS) at two Shell-branded stations previously owned by Shell; she alleged unpaid overtime and missed meal/rest breaks and sought class relief against Shell as a joint employer.
- Shell owned the fuel business and fueling equipment, set fuel prices, paid and owned fuel revenue; ARS leased/operated convenience stores and car washes and employed and paid station staff, supervised, hired, disciplined, and set compensation.
- Operators (including ARS) were contractually required by Shell (MSO Contract, Site Operations Manual, CVP Guide, HSE Reference) to perform specified tasks and to keep stations open 24/7; Shell conducted periodic inspections and could request removal of operator employees for good cause.
- Curry claimed Shell controlled wages, hours, and working conditions through contractual mandates, reimbursement of labor expenses, daily reporting and price surveys, and the 24/7 requirement that allegedly prevented breaks and caused overtime.
- Shell moved for summary judgment arguing it was not Curry’s employer; the trial court granted summary judgment for Shell, finding ARS—not Shell—controlled hiring, pay, discipline, schedules, and day-to-day supervision.
- The appellate court affirmed: applying Martinez’s three definitions of "employ," the court found no triable issue that Shell was Curry’s employer under control, common-law engagement, or suffer/permit tests; it also rejected applying Dynamex’s ABC test to create a triable issue in this joint-employer context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shell "exercised control over wages, hours, or working conditions" under the IWC wage order definition | Shell’s contracts, manuals, inspections, reimbursements, and 24/7 requirements effectively controlled station employees (including Curry) and caused missed breaks/overtime | ARS retained hiring, firing, pay, discipline, schedules, supervision and daily control; Shell only set contract-level requirements and brand standards | No triable issue; ARS controlled wages/hours/conditions, not Shell; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Shell "engaged" Curry (common-law employee test) — control of details and multi-factor test | Shell supplied fuel, equipment, operational rules and required specific tasks, so Curry worked in Shell’s regular business and was subject to Shell’s direction | Majority of common-law factors point to ARS: ARS set duties, supervised, paid, provided payroll and benefits; Shell owned fuel/equipment but did not control manner/means | No triable issue; common-law factors show ARS (not Shell) was employer; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Shell "suffered or permitted" Curry to work (Martinez test) | Shell permitted work by enforcing 24/7 operations and not hindering ARS’s staffing choices, thus causing overtime and missed breaks | Shell did not hire/terminate/supervise daily work; it could request removal for good cause but could not directly prevent ARS from employing Curry | No triable issue; suffering/permitting requires defendant’s knowledge and failure to prevent the work — not met here; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Dynamex/ABC test (for independent-contractor analysis) creates triable issues as to joint-employer status | Dynamex’s ABC factors show Shell controls or performs the usual course of business, so Curry should be treated as Shell’s employee | Dynamex and ABC focus on independent-contractor misclassification and policy concerns not aimed at joint-employer disputes; even applying ABC, Curry fails A–C against Shell | Court declines to extend Dynamex to alter joint-employer analysis here; even applying ABC, no triable issue; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (establishes three alternative definitions of "employ" under IWC wage orders)
- Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) (adopts ABC test for independent-contractor classification under the "suffer or permit" prong)
- Castaneda v. The Ensign Group, Inc., 229 Cal.App.4th 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (piercing/joint-employer analysis where parent company exercised pervasive control over subsidiary’s employment functions)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (summarizes common-law control-of-details multi-factor test for employment)
- Silva v. See's Candy Shops, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (summary judgment burden and standards)