California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 10 R · 1 D cosponsors

AB 1928 — Worker classification: employees and independent contractors.

Last action — Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for those purposes. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is known as the "ABC" test, as described above. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. This bill would repeal the above-described provisions that codify the ABC test. The bill would declare that its purpose is to suspend and nullify the California Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex and provide that this decision does not apply for purposes of California law.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  2. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  3. Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.

  4. From printer. May be heard in committee February 25.

  5. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 15 co-sponsors · 106 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (15)

Not signed on (106)

106 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 106 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1928 do?
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) , creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the "ABC" test, to determine if workers are employees or independent contractors for those purposes. Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. This test is known as the "ABC" test, as described above. Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws, including worker classification. Existing law exempts specified occupations and business relationships from the application of the ABC test described above. Existing law, instead, provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the multifactor test previously adopted in the case of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d. This bill would repeal the above-described provisions that codify the ABC test. The bill would declare that its purpose is to suspend and nullify the California Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex and provide that this decision does not apply for purposes of California law.
Who sponsors AB 1928?
AB 1928 is sponsored by Sanchez, Kate (Republican), Patterson, Joe (Republican), Dixon, Diane (Republican), Vince Fong, Gallagher, James (Republican), Hoover, Josh (Republican), Lackey, Tom (Republican), Mathis, Jim Patterson, Dahle, Grove, Shannon (Republican), Niello, Roger W. (Republican), Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie (Republican), Seyarto, Kelly (Republican), Wilk, and Nguyen, Stephanie (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 1928?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1928?
Track AB 1928 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1928

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1928

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →