Summary: Good-faith dispute about employment status of freelancer who modeled in sporadic one- or two-day increments precluded imposition of waiting-time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203.
Facts: Plaintiff Bijon Hill appeared in 10 photo shoots organized by Defendant Walmart, Inc. between July 2016 and August 2017, for a total of 15 days, in non-consecutive periods of one or two days. Plaintiff sued Defendant for more than $540,000 in waiting-time penalties under California Labor Code section 203 for its failure to pay her immediately after each photo shoot ended. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff was an independent contractor outside the coverage of the relevant Labor Code provisions, and on the basis that there was a good-faith dispute about whether Plaintiff was an independent contractor. The district court denied summary judgment on Defendant’s independent contractor argument, concluding that there was a triable question of fact about whether Plaintiff was an employee, but it granted summary judgment on Defendant’s good-faith defense argument. The district court concluded that there was a good-faith dispute about whether Plaintiff was an independent contractor, noting that the short length of time that Plaintiff worked for Defendant and the fact that she had worked for other companies, among other factors, made it objectively reasonable for Defendant to believe that Plaintiff was not an employee.Plaintiff appealed.
Court’s...
Read Full Story:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/key-california-employment-law-cases-1359455/