Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation
754 F.3d 1093
9th Cir.2014Background
- Ruiz and other drivers allege misclassification as independent contractors by Affinity under California law.
- Affinity controlled key employment details: rates, routes, schedules, equipment, and appearance, while requiring formation of business entities for drivers.
- Drivers signed Independent Truckman’s Agreement and Equipment Lease Agreement, labeling relationship as independent contractor.
- Affinity supplied or deducted costs for trucks, phones, uniforms, and tools, and could terminate or transfer drivers with notice.
- Drivers followed mandated procedures, stand-up meetings, route manifests, and strict adherence to schedules and customer reporting.
- District court initially held Georgia law applied; this Court held California law applies and remanded for California-law analysis; on remand the district court held drivers were independent contractors under California law; Ruiz appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borello’s control test shows employee status | Ruiz: Affinity retained control over rates, routes, schedules, appearance, and tools. | Affinity: Drivers operate as independent contractors with business entities; control is limited. | Yes; drivers are employees under Borello. |
| Role of secondary Borello factors in deciding employee status | Totality of control and business arrangement indicate employment. | Secondary factors insufficient to establish employee status. | Secondary factors weigh in favor of employee status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989) (central test focus: right to control details of work; multiple factors weigh in)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (highlights control over appearance and work details; FedEx drivers treated as employees)
- Tieberg v. Unemp’t Appeals Bd., 471 P.2d 975 (Cal. 1970) (employment test, principal factor is right to control)
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Brown, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (drivers’ freedom to accept assignments not dispositive when control exists)
- J.K.H. Enterprises, Inc., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (relevance of control and business structure in IC/employee analysis)
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (prima facie case of employment; burden shifts to employer)
- Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc., 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses Borello factors and control)