Ruling changes complexion of civil case against cab company
CALEXICO — A Calexico cab company is at the center of a civil lawsuit that some say highlights the ongoing controversy over who employers designate as independent contractors or employees.
Originally filed in October 2015, the county Superior Court case was recently appealed by the plaintiff to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which partially found in plaintiff’s favor.
The local civil lawsuit was filed by Jesus Cuitlahuac Garcia, a former taxi driver for Calexico Taxi, which had argued it simply leased a vehicle to the plaintiff and had limited control over many of his employment-related activities.
“It’s a very important case,” said plaintiff’s attorney Francisco Javier Aldana. “It affects a lot of people who are misclassified as independent contractors instead of
employees. It changes the whole panorama of the state of California.”
Although the appellate court had upheld the lower court’s rejection of the majority of Garcia’s cause of actions, it did allow plaintiff’s wage order claim to be further litigated at the lower court level.
The local court may now consider whether Calexico Taxi failed to pay Garcia the minimum wage and to provide breaks, or violated other wage order-based employee rights, the appellate court ruling stated.
When reached for comment, Erik Ortega, owner of Border Transportation Group LLC, which operates the Calexico Taxi and Border Cab companies, limited his remarks to stating the local court case remains in litigation.
He also indicated Border Transportation Group may consider appealing the appellate court’s ruling to the state Supreme Court.
“That is being determined,” said Ortega, who is also an Imperial Irrigation District board member.
In making his determination, appellate court Judge William Dato had relied on a recent state Supreme Court ruling that clarified the test by which courts should distinguish between independent contractors and employees.
“It basically said Garcia was not an independent contractor,” Aldana said.
The local Superior Court’s previous rejection of Garcia’s eight causes of action had been made prior to the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex Operation West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles.
Those causes of action alleged wrongful termination, unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair competition.
In issuing its summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the local court had relied on a multi-factor test distinguishing independent contractors from employees that was widely used by state courts prior to the Dynamex ruling on April 30.
BTG had contended that those it employed remained free to set their own hours, use vehicles for personal errands, keep collected fares, enter into sublease agreements, market their services in their own name and hold other jobs, the appellate ruling stated.
As part of the test adopted in the Dynamex ruling, defendants had to demonstrate that Garcia was “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business apart from his work for BTG, not that he was merely capable of such engagement,” Dato’s ruling stated.
Garcia was a former Calexico Taxi driver who leased a vehicle for $65 per 12-hour shift from BTG after his personal vehicle broke down in August 2013.
Prior to leasing a BTG vehicle, Garcia had since 2008 used his own vehicle and leased a permit from BTG for about $520 a week, while also paying $350 a month for optional radio dispatch service, the appellate ruling stated.
Garcia reportedly stopped working for BTG after the company requested he pay a $65 shift charge for having returned a leased vehicle late, the ruling stated.
Garcia also alleged that he was prevented by BTG from renewing his lease, while BTG contended that Garcia had chosen not to renew his lease.