Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court
![handle is hein.journals/berkjemp40 and id is 177 raw text is:
RECENT CASES
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC. V. SUPERIOR COURT
I. INTRODUCTION
California's Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) has the authority to
issue and amend orders setting the minimum wage for employees in any
occupation, trade, or industry.' Wage orders currently set the minimum wage
for all industries in the state at $11 per hour, or $12 per hour for employers
with 26 or more employees. They also regulate overtime pay, meal and rest
breaks, and certain other incidental benefits such as uniforms.
The wage orders protect all employees, and define to employ as to
engage, suffer, or permit to work.3 In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v.
Superior Court, the California Supreme Court affirmed that this definition is
a broad one, covering all workers who would ordinarily be viewed as
working in the hiring business.4 In doing so, it applied its eight-year-old
decision in Martinez v. Combs, where the court explained the meaning of the
phrase suffer or permit to work.5 That phrase, which the wage orders have
used for a century, is a distinct and particularly expansive definition of to
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RVOD] 41
1. See CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 1173, 1182 (West 2018). The IWC is a part of the Department of
Industrial Relations, id. § 70, which exists to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners
of California. Id. § 50.5. See Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 824 P.2d 643, 650 (Cal. 1992) (en banc)
(describing the Department's broad rulemaking authority). In practice, however, the legislature exercises
complete control over the content of the IWC's wage orders, including the hourly wage itself. See id. §
1182.12 (specifying what minimum wage increases shall take place from 2017 to 2023); id. § 1182.13(b)
(directing the IWC to amend and republish the wage orders, making the changes in § 1182.12 and no
others). Although the IWC has therefore effectively ceased to exist as an independent rulemaking body,
its orders remain fully valid. See, e.g., Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 155 P.3d 284, 289 n.4
(Cal. 2007).
2. INDUS. WELFARE COMM'N, MW-2019, CALIFORNIA MINIMUM WAGE (2019), available at
https://www.dir.ca.gov/lWC/MW-2019.pdf. Although old IWC wage orders are still published in the
California Code of Regulations, see 8 CAL. CODE REGS. § 11000 et seq. (2018), the Code version is badly
out of date. However, the orders have independent force of law and are valid and operative without
being published in the Code. CAL. LABOR CODE § 1185 (West 2018).
3. See, e.g., INDUS. WELFARE COMM'N, ORDER NO. 9-2001, REGULATING WAGES, HOURS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS IN TIE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY, § 4(A) (2019), available at
https://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/IWCArticle9.pdf.
4. Dynamex Operations W. v. Super. Ct., 416 P.3d 1, 7 (Cal. 2018).
5. Id.; see Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259 (Cal. 2010).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/berkjemp40&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most