1 unchanged sentence
A determination that independent contractors are employees could expose us to various liabilities and additional costs.
−Removed: Federal and state legislation, as well as tax and other regulatory authorities, often seek to assert that independent contractors in the transportation service industry are employees rather than independent contractors.
−Removed: An example of such legislation, recently enacted in California, had been under a judicial stay with respect to trucking companies while a legal challenge to the law is pending;
−Removed: however, the judicial stay was reversed by a Ninth Circuit panel on April 28, 2021.
−Removed: While the panel’s decision may be subject to a petition for rehearing, there can be no assurance that the California law will not be enforceable against trucking companies in the near future or that interpretations supporting the independent contractor status will not change, that other federal or state legislation will not be enacted, or that various authorities will not successfully assert a position that re-classifies independent contractors to be employees.
+Added: Federal and state legislators and other regulatory authorities, as well as independent contractors themselves, have increasingly asserted that independent contractors in the transportation services industry are employees rather than independent contractors.
+Added: Federal and state legislation has been introduced in the past that would make it easier for tax and other authorities to reclassify independent contractors as employees, including legislation designed to increase the recordkeeping requirements for those that engage independent contractor drivers and to increase the penalties for companies who misclassify their employees and are found to have violated employees’ overtime and/or wage requirements.
+Added: In September 2019, California enacted a new law, A.B.
+Added: 5 (“AB5”), that made it more difficult for workers to be classified as independent contractors.
+Added: AB5 provides that the three-pronged “ABC Test” must be used to determine worker classifications in wage order claims.
+Added: Under the ABC Test, a worker is presumed to be an employee and the burden to demonstrate their independent contractor status is on the hiring company through satisfying all three of the following criteria:
+Added: (a) the worker is free from control and direction in the performance of services;
+Added: (b) the worker is performing work outside the usual course of the business of the hiring company;
+Added: and (c) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
+Added: How AB5 will be enforced is still to be determined.
+Added: Although it was set to enter into effect in January 2020, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction staying enforcement of AB5 on the trucking industry while the California Trucking Association (“CTA”) moved forward with its suit seeking to invalidate AB5.
+Added: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed the judicial stay on April 28, 2021.
+Added: Shortly thereafter, the CTA announced it would petition the U.S.
+Added: Supreme Court to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and on June 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion to stay enforcement of AB5 pending the U.S.
+Added: Supreme Court’s decision on CTA’s petition.
+Added: While the U.S.
+Added: Supreme Court may decide to conduct a judicial review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, there can be no assurance that AB5 will not be enforceable against trucking companies in the near future, that interpretations supporting the independent contractor status will not change, that other federal or state legislation will not be enacted, or that various authorities will not successfully assert a position that re-classifies independent contractors to be employees.
If our independent contractors are determined to be our employees, that determination could materially increase our exposure under a variety of federal and state tax, workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, labor, employment and tort laws, as well as our potential liability for employee benefits.
2 unchanged sentences
We are subject to certain risks arising from doing business in Mexico.
−Removed: As we continue to grow our business in Mexico, we are subject to greater risks of doing business internationally, including but not limited to the following:
+Added: As we continue to grow our business in Mexico, we are subject to greater risks of doing business internationally.
+Added: Those risks include but are not limited to the following:
Fluctuations in foreign currencies;
5 unchanged sentences
We also face additional risks associated with our business in Mexico, including but not limited to the following:
−Removed: Changes in Mexican law that would prohibit the hiring of outsourced personnel except under specified circumstances;
−Removed: any change in Mexican law that materially modifies the calculation of an employer’s profit-sharing payments to employees;
+Added: Changes in Mexican law prohibiting the hiring of outsourced personnel except under specified circumstances;
+Added: changes in Mexican law that materially modify the calculation of an employer’s profit-sharing payments to employees;
the adoption and enforcement of restrictive trade policies;
7 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.