twenty-six U. § 3121(d)(3) [the newest statutory staff exclusion enforce “in the event the deal away from provider contemplates one to significantly every one of like features are to be performed physically from the including individual; apart from just one shall never be as part of the name ’employee’ in terms of this paragraph when the such as for instance personal possess a substantial capital inside the establishment included in experience of the brand new overall performance of such qualities (except that in the establishment to possess transportation), or if the services come into the sort of one exchange perhaps not element of a continuous relationship with the person having exactly who the services are executed”].?
twenty-six You. § 3506(b) [“Having reason for it area, the phrase ‘sitters’ form individuals who furnish individual attendance, companionship, otherwise family proper care functions so you’re able to college students or to people who are older otherwise disabled.”].?
twenty six You. § 3506(a) [“For purposes of so it subtitle, a man involved with the change or organization out-of putting sitters in touch with those who wish to utilize them will perhaps not end up being treated due to the fact workplace of these sitters (and you will such as sitters should not be handled given that team of these person) in the event the such as for example individual cannot shell out or receive the salary or earnings of one’s sitters and that’s paid because of the sitters or brand new individuals who employ them with the a fee foundation.”].?
Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a); Flannery v. Ca Road Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.4th 629, 638 [“The wider intent behind the newest FEHA is always to shield an enthusiastic employee’s directly to look for, get, and you may keep employment as opposed to experiencing discrimination because of race, religious creed, colour, federal resource, origins, actual handicap, medical condition, marital position, gender, or age.”].? (more…)