This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Kevin F. Ruf

By Nicolas Sonnenburg | Jul. 10, 2019

Jul. 10, 2019

Kevin F. Ruf

See more on Kevin F. Ruf

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

If there's been one word dominating the discussion of labor law in the California court system more than any other, it's Dynamex.

The landmark state Supreme Court decision issued in April 2018 has radically changed the way the judiciary understands what it means to be an independent contractor, setting the stage for high profile legal battles over the future of the "gig" economy. Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018).

And Ruf, a partner at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, might know the case better than anyone.

He's the one who argued it and won, setting a precedent that establishes what it means to be a general contractor.

"I just didn't have any really strong sense of what they would do," he said in a recent interview about arguing before California's justices.

The unanimous decision favoring a class of Dynamex Operations West Inc. drivers established that independent contractors must be "free from the control of a hirer, perform work outside the usual course of an" employer's business and established in their own, independent occupation or business.

"The ABC test -- what's great about it, at least in my view, is it says there are three criteria to consider and unless all three are met, a person is an employee," Ruf said, describing his efforts in the appeal that California employment lawyers watched closely.

The former white-collar criminal defense attorney and alumnus of Los Angeles' most prominent comedy troupe, The Groundlings, is now a pillar in the employment law bar.

Dynamex is just one of two cases he's argued before the justices.

In 2006, he successfully urged the high court to establish case law requiring employers to pay companies quickly for temporary work or face the possibility of fines. Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006).

Despite his high court successes, Ruf is more at home in trial courts.

In fact, the Dynamex litigation is still ongoing, set to go to mediation later this summer.

When he has time, Ruf still keeps in touch with his comedy roots.

"Occasionally I'll do an improv show at the Groundlings, but mostly I'm a boring lawyer," he said.

-- Nicolas Sonnenburg

#353433

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com