About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0036 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT LAW CHAPTER 1. EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP § 1.01. Conditions for Existence of Employment Relationship Cal.2018. Cit. in fin. Delivery drivers who exclusively performed pickup and delivery work for company filed an action against company, alleging that defendant mischaracterized them as independent contractors rather than employees and violated, inter alia, wage orders governing the transportation industry. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court of appeals affirmed. This court affirmed class certification, holding that, given the purpose of the applicable statute, plaintiffs had a sufficient commonality of interest under the suffer or permit to work standard for determining whether workers were employees or independent contractors. In noting the various standards recognized for distinguishing employees from independent contractors, the court explained that Restatement of Employment Law § 1.01 set forth a factor focused on the entrepreneurial opportunity afforded a worker, which was to be considered in conjunction with the control-of-detail factor. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1, 30. CHAPTER 8. EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS § 8.04. Competition by Current Employee with Current Employer S.D.W.Va.2018. Subsecs. (a) and (b) quot. in sup. Provider of software and related support services to county clerks' offices sued former employee who left plaintiff to work for competitor, alleging, among other things, that defendant breached his duty of loyalty to plaintiff by creating competing software for competitor and soliciting plaintiff s customers for competitor while still employed by plaintiff. This court denied in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant breached his duty of loyalty to plaintiff. The court explained that, under Restatement of Employment Law § 8.04, an employee breached the duty of loyalty to an employer if, without the employer's express or implied consent, the employee, while still employed by the employer, worked for a competitor or otherwise competed with the employer. CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 306 F.Supp.3d 857, 883. COPYRIGHT Cİ2019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved ALI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.