Linton v. DeSoto Cab Company
A146162
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- Linton drove DeSoto taxicabs under a 15‑page nonnegotiable Lease Agreement (2008–2012); he paid a daily "gate fee," kept fares/tips, and was assigned vehicles and shifts via DeSoto’s dispatch.
- DeSoto provided cabs, medallions, waybills, GPS and in‑cab audio/video, required driver documents, conducted orientation/training, issued warnings, and terminated leases for misconduct.
- Linton filed a Labor Commissioner claim alleging misclassification and sought reimbursement of gate fees and related wage remedies; the Labor Commissioner found him an employee and ordered reimbursement and penalties.
- DeSoto appealed to superior court under Labor Code §98.2; after a bench trial the superior court concluded Linton was an independent contractor and entered judgment for DeSoto.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court misapplied the controlling employment‑status law (failed to apply Borello and related tests properly, and misallocated burdens), and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper test for employee status | Borello common‑law test (control + Restatement factors) applies to wage claims; Ayala does not displace Borello | Ayala/common‑law control test governs and Borello’s worker‑comp specifics are inapplicable to wage claims | Borello (control + secondary factors) governs; trial court erred in treating Borello as inapplicable |
| Burden of proof | Presumption of employment applies; burden shifts to employer to prove independent‑contractor status | Plaintiff failed to prove he rendered services to DeSoto, so no presumption applies | Presumption of employment applies; employer bears burden to prove independent‑contractor status |
| Trial court’s factual/legal analysis | Court must analyze and weigh Borello factors (control, discharge, tools, integration, skill, payment, etc.) | Court properly found driver freedoms and contract terms showed independent contractor status | Trial court failed to analyze Borello factors adequately; its conclusions were prejudicial and remand is required |
| Effect of municipal regulation | City/SFMTA rules do not negate employer control; employer may impose additional controls beyond regulation | SFMTA regulation explains many requirements; such regulations do not demonstrate DeSoto control | Regulation alone is not decisive; employer‑imposed augments to regulation can indicate control and were relevant to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (primary framework: right to control plus secondary Restatement factors for employee status)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014) (reaffirmed common‑law control inquiry and clarified application in class/wage contexts)
- Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 226 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (taxi drivers leasing cabs found employees under Borello factors)
- Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 235 Cal.App.3d 1363 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (applied Borello factors to taxi driver benefits question)
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses importance of right to discharge and integration of drivers in taxi business)
- N.L.R.B. v. Friendly Cab Co., Inc., 512 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (employer‑imposed requirements exceeding municipal rules can indicate additional control)