Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 493 P.3d 196

Background

IHSS Direct Hiring: under the IHSS program, recipients may directly hire providers who are paid either by the recipient with public funds or by the state/county under the Direct Hiring method.
Statutory exclusions: Unemployment Ins. Code §631 excludes service "performed by a child under 18 in the employ of his father or mother" and service "in the employ of his son, daughter, or spouse."
§683 designates who counts as an "employer" for IHSS services and, in the Direct Hiring context, identifies the recipient as the employer when the state or county makes direct payments.
Administrative history: the CUIAB issued a Precedent Benefit Decision (Caldera) holding that family-member IHSS caregivers are ineligible for UI benefits under §§631 and 683; an earlier panel decision (Ostapenko) reached the opposite result.
Procedural posture: Tamara Skidgel (an IHSS provider for her daughter) sued under §409.2 to challenge Caldera; trial court and Court of Appeal upheld Caldera; the California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether family-member IHSS providers paid under Direct Hiring are covered by California UI	Skidgel: §631’s phrase "in the employ of" can include joint employment; public entities (state/county/public authority) are joint employers under §§683 and 13005, so providers can qualify for UI	CUIAB/State: reading §§631 and 683 together makes the IHSS recipient the sole employer in Direct Hiring, so §631’s family-member exclusion applies	Held: Affirmed. §§631 and 683 exclude close-family IHSS providers in Direct Hiring from UI coverage.
Whether §683 designates the recipient as sole employer or permits dual employment	Skidgel: the word "also" and context allow treating recipient as one of multiple employers; §683 broadens employer definition to include public entities	State: §683 refines the general definition by specifying, for each IHSS delivery mode, which single entity is the employer; in Direct Hiring that entity is the recipient	Held: §683, read with Welf. & Inst. Code §12302.2 and legislative history, designates the recipient as the sole employer in Direct Hiring.
Whether the state's payroll role (Welf. & Inst. Code §12302.2) or §13005 makes the state a joint employer	Skidgel: the state's payroll and contribution functions mean it is an employer for UI purposes	State: the statute makes the state perform the recipient's duties "as the employer," not the state's own employer status; §13005 applies in a different division and does not override IHSS-specific rules	Held: The state's payroll role does not create joint-employer status; the statutes treat the state as performing the recipient's employer duties, not as an employer in its own right.

Key Cases Cited

Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 29 Cal.3d 101 (Cal. 1981) (PBDs akin to rulemaking; courts assess whether agency interpretation accords with governing law)
American Fed. of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 13 Cal.4th 1017 (Cal. 1996) (agency interpretation of routinely enforced statute entitled to great weight)
United Educators of San Francisco v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal.5th 805 (Cal. 2020) (agency interpretations can be rejected if clearly unauthorized or erroneous)
Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority, 10 Cal.5th 583 (Cal. 2020) (description of IHSS program and prevalence of family providers)
In-Home Supportive Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 152 Cal.App.3d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (workers' compensation analysis discussing "dual" employer coverage; distinguishable on statutory and scheme differences)
Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 36 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1984) (UI statutes are remedial and ordinarily construed liberally to effectuate legislative objective)
People v. Cole, 38 Cal.4th 964 (Cal. 2006) (rules of statutory interpretation; examine text, context, legislative history)
City of Sacramento v. State of California, 50 Cal.3d 51 (Cal. 1990) (historical background on state implementation of federal unemployment insurance system)