Last week, on January 30, 2013, the Supreme Court granted review in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, No. S206874, a case involving class certification of a series of claims brought by newspaper carriers against their employer. The claims stem from the employer's decision to treat the carriers as independent contractors rather than employees.
Here is the docket's description of the issues on review:
This case presents questions concerning the determination of whether common issues predominate in a proposed class action relating to claims that turn on whether members of the putative class are independent contractors or employees.
In Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 77 (Sept. 19, 2012; pub. ord. Oct. 17, 2012), after the trial court denied class certification, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed the order as to five of the eight claims.
The opinion contains this passage, holding that whether, under applicable law, the workers were employees or independent contractors could be established by common proof:
In denying class certification, the trial court agreed with AVP that no commonality exists regarding AVP’s right to control because individualized questions predominate as to who performs the services, when and where they perform the services, and how they perform the services. Many of the court’s observations (and AVP’s arguments), however, actually point to conflicts in the evidence regarding AVP’s right to control rather than individualized questions. ....
Simply put, much of AVP’s evidence, upon which the trial court relied, merely contradicts plaintiffs’ allegations that AVP had policies or requirements about how carriers must do their jobs. The parties do not argue that some carriers operating under the form agreements are employees while others are not. Both sides argue that AVP has policies that apply to all carriers. The difference between the parties is the content of those policies. Plaintiffs argue that the policies are ones that control the way in which the carriers accomplish their work; AVP argues the policies impose certain requirements about the result of the work but allow the carriers to determine manner and means used to accomplish that result. While there may be conflicts in the evidence regarding whether the policies plaintiffs assert exist, the issue itself is common to the class. Similarly, whether the policies that exist are ones that merely control the result, rather than control the manner and means used to accomplish that result, is an issue that is common to the class.
Slip op. at 17-18 (italics in original; bold added).
I have not seen the petition for review, answer or reply in this case and would be grateful to anyone who can forward copies.
Ayala has been added to my list of pending Supreme Court cases.