twenty six You. § 3121(d)(3) [the legal employee exclusion enforce “when your offer out-of solution contemplates you to definitely substantially each one of such qualities will be did myself of the for example individual; apart from an individual should not be within the identity ’employee’ beneath the arrangements of part in the event the such as personal provides a substantial funding in facilities found in contact with the fresh results of such services (other than in place to own transport), or if perhaps the support have the type of a single transaction not part of a continuous reference to anyone to have just who the assistance are performed”].?
twenty six You. § 3506(b) [“To possess purposes of that it point, the expression ‘sitters’ function those who give personal attendance, company, otherwise family care services so you can youngsters or to people who find themselves older otherwise disabled.”].?
26 You. § 3506(a) [“To own reason for this subtitle, men involved with the brand new trading or business from putting sitters in touch with individuals who want to utilize them shall perhaps not be treated due to the fact boss of these sitters (and particularly sitters shall not treated since employees of these person) in the event the eg person does not spend otherwise have the salary or earnings of one’s sitters that will be compensated by the sitters otherwise the brand new people just who employ them towards a fee base.”].?
Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a); matchbox indir Flannery v. Ca Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.fourth 629, 638 [“The brand new broad function of the fresh FEHA would be to shield a keen employee’s straight to find, receive, and you can hold a career rather than feeling discrimination because of competition, religious creed, colour, federal source, origins, actual handicap, health problem, relationship position, gender, or ages.”].?
Shephard v. Continue reading “City of La (2013) 218 Cal”