Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 478 P.3d 1207

The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether Dynamex v. Superior Court (2018) should be applied retroactively to nonfinal cases.
In Dynamex the Court interpreted the wage orders’ phrase “suffer or permit to work” and adopted the ABC test to determine when a worker is an independent contractor for wage-order purposes.
Jan‑Pro (defendant) argued retroactivity should not apply because businesses reasonably relied on Borello’s multifactor test when classifying workers as independent contractors.
The Court held Dynamex is an authoritative interpretation of wage‑order language and thus, under normal retroactivity principles, applies to all cases not yet final when Dynamex became final.
The Court rejected Jan‑Pro’s reliance/fairness and due‑process arguments, noting Martinez and Ayala had left the wage‑order test unsettled and public‑policy considerations favor retroactivity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dynamex applies retroactively	Dynamex is an authoritative interpretation of wage‑order language and should apply to all nonfinal cases	Retroactive application is unfair; parties reasonably relied on Borello	Yes. Dynamex applies retroactively to all nonfinal cases governed by similarly worded wage orders
Whether a narrow exception to retroactivity is warranted (reliance/fairness)	No exception — issue was unsettled and employers were on notice the law might change	An exception is required because employers reasonably relied on Borello and could not anticipate ABC test	No exception. Reliance/fairness/due‑process claims fail; prior cases signaled the issue was unresolved and public policy favors retroactivity

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) (adopted ABC test to interpret “suffer or permit to work” in wage orders)
S.G. Borello & Sons v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (articulated multifactor test for employee/independent‑contractor analysis)
Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., 48 Cal.3d 973 (Cal. 1989) (explains general rule that judicial interpretations apply retroactively absent compelling reasons)
Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995) (reaffirms general retroactivity principle)
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1994) (judicial statutory construction applies to the statute as originally enacted and is generally retroactive)
Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (noted wage‑order definitions of "employ" remained an open question)
Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014) (declined to resolve wage‑order employee/IC issue and left it for another day)
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (discussed scope of "suffer or permit to work")
Woolsey v. State of California, 3 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 1992) (retroactivity applies when a court vindicates the original meaning of an enactment)