Worker status: independent contractors: pharmacists.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 966 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 966.
You're tracking SB 966
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 966 — Worker status: independent contractors: pharmacists.
Last action — Referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2019-2020 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. 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. Inc. 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 purposes of specified wage orders. 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 commonly known as the "ABC" test. 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 Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand the above-described exemptions to also include individuals who are licensed pharmacists.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/11/20 - Introduced Current pdf February 11, 2020
- SB966 View text html
Action History
-
Referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Nielsen · Primary
- Bates · Cosponsor
- Borgeas · Cosponsor
- Chang · Cosponsor
- Shannon Grove · Cosponsor
- Moorlach · Cosponsor
- Morrell · Cosponsor
- Wilk · Cosponsor
- Brian W. Jones · Cosponsor
- Megan Dahle · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 112 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Nielsen
Co-sponsors (9)
- Bates
- Borgeas
- Chang
- Grove, Shannon Republican
- Moorlach
- Morrell
- Wilk
- Jones, Brian W. Republican
- Dahle, Megan Republican
Not signed on (112)
112 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 112 →"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.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 966 do?
- Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. 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 purposes of specified wage orders. 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 commonly known as the "ABC" test. 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 Dynamex and these provisions. Existing law instead provides that these exempt relationships are governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341. This bill would expand the above-described exemptions to also include individuals who are licensed pharmacists.
- Who sponsors SB 966?
- SB 966 is sponsored by Nielsen, Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Grove, Shannon (Republican), Moorlach, Morrell, Wilk, Jones, Brian W. (Republican), and Dahle, Megan (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 966?
- This bill died with 2019-2020 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 SB 966?
- Track SB 966 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 966
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.
Stay ahead of SB 966
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →