24 Cal. App. 5th 574
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- IHSS provides in-home services to elderly/disabled recipients; under the Direct Payment Mode the state/transmitting agency pays providers or gives funds to recipients to pay providers.
- Unemp. Ins. Code §683 specifically defines who counts as an "employer" of IHSS providers for unemployment insurance when services are provided via the Direct Payment Mode (including the recipient).
- Unemp. Ins. Code §631 excludes services performed by close family members (child, parent, spouse) from unemployment insurance "employment."
- CUIAB previously issued conflicting administrative rulings; Matter of Caldera (CUIAB precedent) held that close-family-member IHSS providers paid under Direct Payment Mode are excluded from UI coverage because the recipient is the employer.
- Skidgel (an IHSS provider for her daughter) challenged Caldera, arguing government entities (state, counties, public authorities) are joint employers and thus §631’s family exclusion should not bar UI coverage.
- The trial court upheld Caldera; the appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory scheme (esp. Unemp. Ins. Code §683 and Welf. & Inst. Code §12302.2) designates the recipient as the sole employer for UI purposes under Direct Payment Mode, so §631 excludes close-family-member providers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IHSS recipients are the sole "employer" of providers under Direct Payment Mode for unemployment insurance | Skidgel: statute ambiguous; common-law joint-employer principles and §621 allow state/county joint-employer status | CUIAB/State: §683 and Welf. & Inst. Code §12302.2 show Legislature intended recipient to be the employer and state only performs payroll functions | Held: Recipient is the sole employer for UI under Direct Payment Mode; §683 and §12302.2 control and preempt broader joint-employer arguments |
| Whether close-family-member exclusion (§631) is inapplicable if government is a joint employer | Skidgel: government involvement prevents collusion risk and supports joint-employer treatment so §631 should not bar coverage | CUIAB/State: §631 applies because recipient is the employer; explicit statutory scheme supports the exclusion | Held: §631 excludes close-family-member IHSS providers because recipient is the employer under Direct Payment Mode |
| Proper interpretive weight of statutes, legislative history, and administrative practice | Skidgel: legislative and regulatory framework supports joint employment or at least ambiguity in favor of coverage | CUIAB/State: plain text plus legislative history (cost/administration intent) supports recipient-as-employer reading | Held: Court favors the recipient-as-sole-employer reading based on statutory text, structure, and legislative history; legislative intent to minimize employer burdens on counties/state influenced enactment |
| Impact of prior authorities finding joint employment (FLSA, workers' comp, county liability) | Skidgel: cases like Bonnette, Guerrero, and In-Home Supportive Services show joint-employer findings in related contexts and should inform UI analysis | CUIAB/State: those authorities apply different statutory schemes (FLSA, wage-hour, workers' comp) and are distinguishable; UI statutes contain different definitions and an express family exclusion | Held: Those precedents are distinguishable; even if persuasive elsewhere, UI statutory scheme controls and leads to different result for unemployment insurance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir.) (FLSA joint-employer analysis holding state/county could be joint employers of IHSS providers)
- Guerrero v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.4th 912 (Cal. Ct. App.) (applies Bonnette reasoning to find county/public authority joint employers under FLSA and state wage-hour law)
- In-Home Supportive Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 152 Cal.App.3d 720 (Cal. Ct. App.) (workers' compensation context: state/county found joint employers for coverage aggregation)
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 29 Cal.3d 101 (Cal. 1981) (standard of review for judicial challenges to CUIAB precedent decisions)