ADJ13090134 · August 14, 2025

The WCJ found Paradies Lagardere to be a joint employer based on control factors and rejected the business-to-business exception, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and applicable law.

From the decision · page 6The Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025, finding, in relevant part, that applicant was a joint employee of Paradies. (Finding of Fact, at p. 1, § 2.) The concurrently issued Opinion on Decision explains that the issue of joint employment was relevant because Zinder were uninsured for workers' compensation coverage at the time of the injury. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 26.) Focusing on the extent to which Paradies had the right to control applicant's behavior, the WCJ found that although Paradies had no direct communication with applicant, it exerted control over her through Zinder. (Id. at pp. 27§ 28.) The WCJ also found that the cleaning services provided

Applicant was employed by Zinder and Mejia, and performed janitorial work at Bourbon Pub operated by Paradies.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Establishes employment relationship and context for joint employment analysis.

From the decision · page 3Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication, later amended, alleging an injury to her knee and ankle sustained on November 17, 2019. Applicant initially listed Zinder as her employer, then amended the application to list her employer as "Isidro Mejia, individually and dba as Zinder Janitorial Co." UEBTF was added as a defendant based on the fact that Mejia and Zinder lacked workers' compensation insurance. UEBTF filed a petition seeking to join Paradies as a joint employer of applicant, and Paradies was subsequently joined to the claim.

Paradies exerted control over applicant through Zinder and cleaning services were integral to Paradies' restaurant business.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports finding of joint employment by control and business integration factors.

From the decision · page 6The Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025, finding, in relevant part, that applicant was a joint employee of Paradies. (Finding of Fact, at p. 1, § 2.) The concurrently issued Opinion on Decision explains that the issue of joint employment was relevant because Zinder were uninsured for workers' compensation coverage at the time of the injury. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 26.) Focusing on the extent to which Paradies had the right to control applicant's behavior, the WCJ found that although Paradies had no direct communication with applicant, it exerted control over her through Zinder. (Id. at pp. 27§ 28.) The WCJ also found that the cleaning services provided

Paradies did not have direct communication with applicant and some factors militated against joint employment finding.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Indicates complexity and grounds for reconsideration of joint employment finding.

From the decision · page 6The Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025, finding, in relevant part, that applicant was a joint employee of Paradies. (Finding of Fact, at p. 1, § 2.) The concurrently issued Opinion on Decision explains that the issue of joint employment was relevant because Zinder were uninsured for workers' compensation coverage at the time of the injury. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 26.) Focusing on the extent to which Paradies had the right to control applicant's behavior, the WCJ found that although Paradies had no direct communication with applicant, it exerted control over her through Zinder. (Id. at pp. 27§ 28.) The WCJ also found that the cleaning services provided

Borello v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349

Borello test for employment status

Used by WCJ to assess joint employment

From the decision · page 7III. In our initial review, we note that the parties do not dispute that applicant was employed by Zinder, nor did any party other than Paradies contest the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE to applicant's right knee and ankle. We also note that the WCJ relied upon a wide range of legal analysis to support his conclusions, including the Borello factors as enumerated in Borello v. Department of Industrial Relations (Borello) (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349, the Dynamex test of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 as codified in Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, and the principle of joint employment, as outlined in National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co. v. IAC (1947) 80 Cal. App. 2d 769.

Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903

Dynamex test for employment status

Referenced by WCJ and noted as codified in Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, but not applicable to injury date

From the decision · page 7III. In our initial review, we note that the parties do not dispute that applicant was employed by Zinder, nor did any party other than Paradies contest the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE to applicant's right knee and ankle. We also note that the WCJ relied upon a wide range of legal analysis to support his conclusions, including the Borello factors as enumerated in Borello v. Department of Industrial Relations (Borello) (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349, the Dynamex test of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 as codified in Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, and the principle of joint employment, as outlined in National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co. v. IAC (1947) 80 Cal. App. 2d 769.

National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co. v. IAC (1947) 80 Cal. App. 2d 769

Joint employment principle

Used by WCJ to find joint employment where services benefit multiple employers

From the decision · page 9Comp. Cases 134] (Kowalski).); Caso v. Nimrod Productions, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 881; Riley v. Southwest Marine (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 1242, 1247§ 1248.) Joint employment exists where services are performed for the mutual benefit of two or more employers. (National Automobile and Casualty Insurance Co. v. IAC (1947) 80 Cal. App. 2d 769.)