Latest news with #AssemblyBill5
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Federal lawsuit alleges discrimination against Vietnamese women nail techs
The fight for licensed manicurists to be able to work as self-employed without passing a test is going to court. Backed by Vietnamese American nail technicians and nail salon owners holding protest signs, including 'stop Asian hate,' Republican Assemblyman Tri Ta announced Monday morning the filing of a discrimination lawsuit outside of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Santa Ana. 'Earlier this year, our office received many concerns from Vietnamese American manicurists and nail salon owners,' Ta said at a news conference. 'Their lives were turned upside down overnight when the independent contractor status expired on January 1.' 'It is not just unfair, it is discrimination,' he added. Licensed barbers, cosmetologists, estheticians and electrologists can still work as independent contractors under state labor law without being subjected to a rigorous test. But exemptions under Assembly Bill 5 expired this year for manicurists. The change has left manicurists and nail salon owners alike confused as to whether non-employees can continue renting booths for their businesses — a decades-long industry practice. Ta, whose 70th Assembly District encompasses Little Saigon, said 82% of manicurists in the state are Vietnamese, with 85% of those being women. The federal discrimination suit, filed on May 31, represents several Orange County nail salon businesses as well as individual manicurists. Gov. Gavin Newsom and the heads of five state agencies and boards are named as defendants. 'This lawsuit seeks only one thing — to make sure that all professionals in the beauty industry are treated equally and to eliminate the obvious discrimination against the Vietnamese community,' the complaint reads. Attorney Scott Wellman, who is litigating on behalf of the nail salon owners and manicurists, held up a copy of the complaint during the news conference. He claimed the equal protection rights of his clients under the U.S. Constitution are being violated by the lack of an exemption. 'This wrong has to be righted,' Wellman said. The suit represents a change in strategy for those fighting on behalf of aggrieved manicurists and nail salon owners. In February, Ta introduced Assembly Bill 504, which aimed to reinstate the exemption for manicurists, but later claimed the proposed legislation couldn't even get a hearing from the committee on labor and employment. He followed up in March by calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation into alleged racial discrimination codified in California labor law, before ultimately turning to federal court. 'These hardworking professionals deserve the same freedom to set their own hours, to choose their own clients, to rent their own booths and to run their own businesses on their own terms just like other peers in the beauty industry,' Ta said Monday. Ta and the suit cite statistics from a UCLA Labor Center report on California's nail salon industry that was published last year. Co-authors of the report, though, have been publicly critical of Ta's efforts to have the exemption reinstated. 'As an industry predominantly consisting of Vietnamese and female manicurists, AB 5 protects the community from misclassification and labor violations that have long existed at the workplace so that they can receive the wages, benefits and protections that all workers deserve,' said Lisa Fu, executive director of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative and report co-author. The report found that 80% of nail salon workers are considered low-wage earners, with 30% of manicurists in the state classified as self-employed, which is triple the national rate. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who authored the sunset provision in AB 5, previously told TimesOC that the nail salon industry has a long history of high misclassification rates that needed added guardrails for labor rights 'while still allowing individual business owners the ability to work as a sole proprietor and simply rent space from a salon.' Manicurists who back the federal discrimination suit spoke out at Monday's press conference. 'I want to be able to continue to work as an independent contractor,' said Loan Ho. 'It gives me more flexibility. I have time to raise my children.' Emily Micelli works out of Blu Nail Bar at Fashion Island in Newport Beach, which is the lead plaintiff in the suit. She has more than 20 years of experience as a nail technician and doesn't want to be a nail salon employee. Micelli left the previous nail salon she worked out of when the owner wouldn't allow her to continue as an independent contractor. 'I cannot keep clients on my phone, make appointments and come up with my own custom design packages,' Micelli said after the news conference. 'I have to abide by the salon's rules. It will make me lose business.' Micelli believes that while the law may be well-intended, it otherwise serves to discriminate against Vietnamese American women like herself. 'I know the law wants to protect us as workers,' she said, 'but being a W-2 [worker] is better for office workers not for people like us, who are artists. I'm actually an artist — a nail artist.'
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
AB5, Broker Bonds & You: A Simple Breakdown for Fleets
If you've ever asked yourself, 'Do I need my own broker bond?' or 'What does this AB5 stuff mean for me now that I'm running under my own authority?' you're not alone. It's a lot to sort out between regulatory shifts, legal gray areas and the ever-blurring line between independent contractor and employee. So let's make it easy. Here's what AB5 and broker bonds mean for you, whether you're behind the wheel or managing your first truck. What is AB5 and Why Should You Care? California's Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) wasn't written with truckers in mind, but it's sure hitting our industry square in the teeth. AB5 redefines what it means to be an independent contractor in California. The 'ABC test' was introduced. It says that if you're doing the same type of work as the person paying you, like hauling freight for a motor carrier, you might legally be considered their employee, not an independent contractor. That's a problem for owner-operators leased on to larger carriers in California. It puts lease arrangements in legal limbo. After a lengthy legal battle, AB5 was upheld and is now being enforced. The fallout? Many carriers have had to restructure their lease agreements, abandon California operations or encourage drivers to obtain their authority. For new MCs, that opens up a whole new can of regulatory worms, including the question of whether they need their own broker bond. What Is a Broker Bond, and When Do You Need One? Let's cut through it. Say you're only running freight under your own MC number as a carrier, In that case, you don't need a broker bond, but if you want to broker freight, meaning you arrange loads between a shipper and another motor carrier, then you need a broker authority and a $75,000 surety bond, known in the industry as a BMC-84. This bond is the government's way of making sure brokers pay carriers. It's your financial promise to do things right. But lately, the broker bond world's been messy. Claims are rising, fraud is rampant, and bond underwriters are tightening their criteria. Some companies are even requiring collateral from new brokers or refusing applicants with no financial history. Why This Matters Right Now With AB5 pushing more owner-operators to get their own authority, some folks think the next step is to broker loads, maybe to keep trucks busy and make a little margin on the side. Brokering freight without the proper authority and bond isn't just illegal; it's asking for fines, shutdowns and maybe even lawsuits. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is cracking down, and more insurance companies are flagging 'double brokering' as a serious risk exposure.
Associated Press
27-01-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
With California's AB5 Bill, Gig Economy Workers and Employers May Need Legal Help
'California employees and employers must understand the implications of this law to guarantee their compliance and provide/receive fair treatment. ' — Ken LaMance, LegalMatch's General Counsel. RENO, NV, UNITED STATES, January 27, 2025 / / -- In the ever-evolving landscape of employment law, California's Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which was introduced in 2020, has brought significant changes to how workers are classified in the gig economy. The classification of workers as employees or independent contractors plays a crucial role in determining their rights, benefits, and legal obligations. Under the ABC test mandated by AB5, workers are presumed to be employees unless they meet specific criteria including freedom from employer control, working outside the employer's business scope, and engaging in an independent trade. This shift has far-reaching implications on minimum wage, overtime pay, benefits, and legal protections for workers. The gig economy, characterized by freelance and temporary work arrangements, has thrived on flexibility but has also raised concerns about worker rights and protections. Individuals working in this sector, known as gig workers, face unique challenges in navigating their employment status and entitlements. the leading online attorney matching service, offers a platform to help connect individuals with experienced attorneys who are well-versed in California employment law, including the nuances of AB5 and worker classification. Additionally, LegalMatch provides valuable resources through its online Law library to educate California employees on their rights and obligations in the gig economy. For those seeking legal guidance on AB5 compliance or worker classification issues, can help facilitate access to knowledgeable attorneys who can provide tailored advice and support. About LegalMatch California is a California State Bar certified Lawyer Referral Service #0140 dedicated to improving the quality and affordability of legal services in all California counties. LegalMatch California is an innovative forum for lawyers and legal clients to meet. California attorneys interested in joining LegalMatch California must meet membership qualifications and carry malpractice insurance. LegalMatch California, like its parent organization remains free to consumers. Ken LaMance LegalMatch +1 415-946-0856 X LinkedIn YouTube Legal Disclaimer:
