As thought leaders in the HR community, we write and speak regularly about HR news and trends.

Quick Links: Events | Bulletin | Blog | Knowledge Center


SharedHR hosts webinars, live seminars, workshops, and other informational events to keep you up-to-date on the latest in HR and best business practices.

Learn more

We Currently Have No Scheduled Events

Bay Area Human Resources Services


SharedHR’s monthly bulletin keeps you up to date on the latest HR news.

Bay Area Human Resources Services

Independent Contractors Narrowly Defined in CA

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding independent contractors creates a succinct and more narrow definition that should spur employers to evaluate – and likely reclassify – some independent contractors as employees.


The test for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors previously weighed a number of factors, without placing emphasis on any one factor or requirement.

On April 30, 2018, a landmark decision on this topic was issued by the California Supreme Court (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court).  The class-action case was brought by California-based delivery drivers at Dynamex, a Texas-based business that provides package tracking and delivery.  The court decided that, because those individuals were delivery drivers and working for a delivery business, the relationship was that of employer-employee.

This decision applied a rigid test of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.  California employers must now apply three factors in conjunction in determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor.  To be legitimately an independent contractor, the “ABC” test requires all the following be true:

  1. that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact; and
  2. that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  3. that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work he or she performed for the principal.

If an employer fails to establish any of the three factors, it will result in a determination that the worker is an employee.

The requirements imposed by factor “B” (which was previously one of several to be considered but had not been interpreted as required) means that a vast majority of individuals working at a company would be considered employees if they perform work that is in line with the customary business.  The Court gave a few examples: when a retail store hires an outside plumber to perform occasional repairs, the services of that individual are not part of the store’s usual course of business and the store would not be seen as performing the work of an employee.  Alternatively, if a bakery hires a cake decorator to work on a regular basis on custom-designed cakes, the worker is part of the business’ usual operations and would be reasonable to view this as an employer-employee relationship, even if the cake decorator is in separately also in business for him/herself.

The Court’s ruling specifically applies to claims asserted under the IWC Wage Orders, which detail the obligations employers have related to minimum wage, overtime, rest and meal breaks.  In these cases, employers bear the burden of proof in a challenge to the classification.


This decision draws a clear line between employee and independent contractor; one that employers in California will need to follow.  One would also expect that a ripple effect may occur in the “gig economy” of casual, independent workforce by making some of those “gig” relationships non-compliant, as the decision gathers more work relationships under the “employer – employee” umbrella.

California companies should immediately review their current Independent Contractors against the “ABC” test to assess whether reclassification might be in order.  Going forward, while bringing in new workers, employers will need to look carefully at any independent contractor arrangements to ensure the classification is correct under this new, stricter ruling.  Employers in other states may also wish to take note, as this decision could be a catalyst for more worker-friendly decisions in those states on this topic.

Amy Kelemen, SPHR – Director of Professional Services & Senior HR Consultant

Disclaimer: Some information contained herein has been abridged from numerous sources and may be protected by various copyright laws. Such information should not be construed as consulting or legal advice. Please contact our office for specific advice and/or referrals.

Bay Area Human Resources Services

ICE Planning an Increase in I-9 Audits During Summer 2018

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has announced that employers should expect a surge in immigration enforcement in the workplace in 2018.  Already, ICE has opened more immigration cases in 2018 than they opened in the entire fiscal year of 2017 (Oct 1-Sept 30).  This is a significant increase in enforcement.  Additionally, the way in which penalties are calculated have changed.  ICE now adds the number of paperwork violations to the number of hiring violations as the numerator, which in some cases dramatically increases the amount of the fine.  So, while I9 audits have not traditionally been on the radar of many Human Resources departments, it has never been more critical to ensure compliance.

The following are steps you can take right now to improve your chances of a clean ICE I9 audit:

  • Correct simple errors (i.e., missing date, transcription error) – cross out the wrong information and fill in the correct information. Initial and date the correction.
  • Check for documentation errors – if there are any errors regarding an employee’s document (i.e., missing information), you will need to have the employee bring in appropriate documentation. Employees do not need to bring in the same documents that they originally used, so long as the document(s) is/are from the “List of Acceptable Documents.”
  • Conduct regular self-audits of I9 documentation – verify that all employees are accounted for, along with recent terminations.  If any are missing, have the employee fill out another form with the current date.  Do not backdate – note and initial that the old form was lost and a new one was created.
  • Missing I9 forms – If you are missing I-9 forms for terminated employees that should still be on file (less than three years after the date of hire or less than one year after termination), there is not much you can do. If you have copies of the employee’s documents, you can fix basic transcription errors. Terminated employees do not need to be contacted to correct I9 errors.

Going forward, ICE plans to conduct up to 15,000 Form I-9 audits per year.  These audits will be completed by electronically scanning documents in a not-yet-created national inspection center.  Therefore, it is more important than ever to take precaution and comply with I9/immigration regulations.

Meredith Delia – HR Consultant

Disclaimer: Some information contained herein has been abridged from numerous sources and may be protected by various copyright laws. Such information should not be construed as consulting or legal advice. Please contact our office for specific advice and/or referrals.

Bay Area Human Resources Services


SharedHR’s blog addresses important HR topics. We cover everything from compliance to workplace advice.

When is it Time to Leave a PEO?

Author: Saul Macias, MBA, PHR – Vice President of HR Services

When you were smaller, partnering with a professional employer organization (PEO) made sense. It shifted some tasks and liabilities off your shoulders and allowed you to afford to offer good health benefits to your employees. Most of all, outsourcing your human resources, benefits, and payroll gave you space to concentrate on growing your business.

Though co-employment had a role in the growth of your organization, many employers arrive at a point where it is appropriate to exit. Here are some key considerations as you decide whether to initiate that transition away from your PEO:

Benefits: Lots has changed in the world of benefits in the past couple of years. Offering benefits in-house would give you the autonomy to design, choose and manage your health and retirement benefits. The desire for greater flexibility in employee benefits can be a key driver to part ways from a PEO. (A lack of knowledge in this area, however, can often delay a PEO exit).

Service: As you grow, your business and your employees’ needs become more complex. In the midst of that complexity, you may find that your PEO lacks the expertise to drive and support your HR, benefits and payroll to meet your unique and evolving needs. Furthermore, a lack of onsite support or expertise to help you cover a multi-state or international expansion can be most challenging under a PEO model.

Cost /Scale: The average employer in a PEO has 15 employees. According to the Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM), the average HR professional supervises approximately 70 employees. Somewhere between 70 and 100 employees the economics may merit managing your benefits, payroll and HR in-house. But what will it take to build a team that can handle this role?

Co-employment: Under a PEO, one key area of managing your employees is done by a different company whose culture and identity could be very different from yours.

Once you have decided to exit, how do you make it happen?

PEO Transition:  Working with an experienced partner like ABD can help you analyze and manage the critical transition away from your PEO. Our team of multi-disciplined experts can help you plan, select the best technology platform, build the required work flows, and transition into your new program while keeping daily operations running smoothly. We can also help you hire an internal team or uncover new options that offer more flexibility than a PEO, but still allow you to outsource some or all of your human resources function. Contact us today to explore the possibilities.

Disclaimer: Some information contained herein has been abridged from numerous sources and may be protected by various copyright laws. Such information should not be construed as consulting or legal advice. Please contact our office for specific advice and/or referrals.

Bay Area Human Resources Services