Vaynberg
Vaynberg v. Chevron Products CA1/2
Opinion
Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Moysey Vaynberg worked for respondent Chevron Products Company (Chevron) through an employment agency for nine years, from August 1999 through April 2008. For the last eight of those years, appellant worked through Value Added Consulting Group (Value Added). Appellant sued Value Added1 and Chevron for wage and hour violations, primarily the failure to pay him overtime. At trial, there was no dispute that Value Added was appellant’s employer; the main issue was appellant’s employment relationship with Chevron. Appellant contended that he was also an employee of Chevron, i.e., that Value Added and Chevron were appellant’s “joint” or “dual” employers. Chevron maintained that appellant was an independent contractor. The jury returned a verdict for Chevron and the trial court denied appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
1 A default was entered against Value Added. It is not a party to this appeal.
1 On appeal, appellant contends the trial court prejudicially misinstructed the jury on the common law test for an employment relationship and also erred in excluding evidence. Finding no reversible error, we will affirm.