Summary judgment for defendant reversed; questions of fact remained as to whether the plaintiff was a domestic work employee of defendant caregiver placement agency for purposes of the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, Lab. Code 1450 et seq., rather than an independent contractor as the defendant claimed.  The DWBR defines a domestic worker-employer as including one who employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of a domestic work employee.  Lab. Code 1451(c)(1).  There was enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant exercised control over plaintiff’s wages by negotiating the overall hourly cost of domestic work care with the person hiring plaintiff for those services.  Also, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff met the common law test of being an employee by exercising control over plaintiff’s provision of caregiving services.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5 (Simons, Acting P.J.); January 11, 2019; 31 Cal. App. 5th 232