The issues considered by the court in this case involved determining if the plaintiffs were in fact employees of the EGL company, which would entitle them to benefits under the California Labor Code. Although EGL is a company based in Texas, with the claim arising under California’s governing system the law would consequently be interpreted by the boundaries of liability under California’s system in determining the plaintiffs as employees. The district court granted the motion for summary judgement but the appellate court did not. The district court based their decision on the choice-of-law clause, but the agreement’s declaration could not stand alone because the claims did not arise involving the contract, rather out of entitlement to benefits. Hence, in spite of having signed contractor agreements, the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were still being treated as employees and the appellate court reversed the motion for EGL’s summary judgement.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:02:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015