In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc., the Court examined if a staffing agency employer, as well as the contracting company using the worker, can be held liable as an employer.  Plaintiff sued her contracting employer, USCM, and her direct employer, a staffing agency. She asserted employment-related claims.  The trial court stated that her claims required a threshold showing that the USCM was her employer, not just the staffing agency that hired her. UCSM argued that it had less control over her as compared to the agency and thus was not her employer. The trial court permitted this test and the jury found only the staffing agency liable. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed.  It stated that to evaluate whether an entity is an employer for FEHA purposes, courts consider the totality of circumstances and analyze several factors, principal among them the extent of direction and control possessed and/or exercised by the employer over the employee.  The Court held that the inquiry with respect to the contracting employer is considered individually, not in relation to that of the direct employer.  It said that there is no contest of relative influence as framed by USCM. As such, the wrong law was applied. After outlining the proper tests, the Court reversed for a new trial on the issues.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.