Supreme Court grants review in class certification/employment case: Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.

Last week, on January 30, 2013, the Supreme Court granted review in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, No. S206874, a case involving class certification of a series of claims brought by newspaper carriers against their employer.  The claims stem from the employer's decision to treat the carriers as independent contractors rather than employees. 

Here is the docket's description of the issues on review:

This case presents questions concerning the determination of whethercommon issues predominate in a proposed class action relating to claimsthat turn on whether members of the putative class are independentcontractors or employees.

In Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 77 (Sept. 19, 2012; pub. ord. Oct. 17, 2012), after the trial court denied class certification, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed the order as to five of the eight claims.

The opinion contains this passage, holding that whether, under applicable law, the workers were employees or independent contractors could be established by common proof: 

In denyingclass certification, the trial court agreed with AVP that no commonality existsregarding AVP’s right to control because individualized questions predominateas to who performs the services, when and where they perform the services, andhow they perform the services.  Many ofthe court’s observations (and AVP’s arguments), however, actually point toconflicts in the evidence regarding AVP’s right to control rather thanindividualized questions. ....

Simply put, much of AVP’s evidence,upon which the trial court relied, merely contradicts plaintiffs’ allegationsthat AVP had policies or requirements about how carriers must do theirjobs.  The parties do not argue that somecarriers operating under the form agreements are employees while others arenot.  Both sides argue that AVP haspolicies that apply to allcarriers.  The difference between theparties is the content of those policies. Plaintiffs argue that the policies are ones that control the way inwhich the carriers accomplish their work; AVP argues the policies imposecertain requirements about the result of the work but allow the carriers todetermine manner and means used to accomplish that result.  While there may be conflicts in the evidenceregarding whether the policies plaintiffs assert exist, the issue itself iscommon to the class.  Similarly, whetherthe policies that exist are ones that merely control the result, rather thancontrol the manner and means used to accomplish that result, is an issue thatis common to the class.

Slip op. at 17-18 (italics in original; bold added).

I have not seen the petition for review, answer or reply in this case and would be grateful to anyone who can forward copies. 

Ayala has been added to my list of pending Supreme Court cases.