Quote Quoting vv88
View Post
I quit with short notice three weeks after starting work, and am now being sued for damages arising from breach of contract to the tune of $25,000.
What are they claiming that you did or did not do, such that you owe the money?
Quote Quoting vv88
1. In the agreement I signed I am described as an independent contractor, but my the work I performed fits under employee classification under California, Texas, and Federal law.
That may or may not help you, depending upon the basis of the damages claim.
Quote Quoting vv88
2. The employment agency is withholding my wages.
You're an independent contractor so, at least as of the moment, they're not "wages". As you were previously told, you can protest your classification and see whether the state agrees with you.
Quote Quoting vv88
3. The employment agency has a forfeited corporate status in California
This is relevant to what?
Quote Quoting vv88
4. The contract contains a venue of litigation clause specifying Texas as the venue of litigation.
Choice of venue clauses are not unusual.
Quote Quoting vv88
Is there a way to claim that California has jurisdiction over this suit regardless of what the contract states or to invalidate the contract?
Is there any way? Sure, but you haven't shared any facts that will help us make such a determination.
Quote Quoting vv88
View Post
There is some case history regarding enforceability of forum selection clauses- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 2009 - which concluded that forum selection clauses that violate California public policy are unenforceable.
As somebody else intimated, that's nonsense. The case is a consumer law case, decided under consumer law, not employment law.
Quote Quoting vv88
View Post
"The fact that OP didn't have any objection to being classified as an [IC] until after the other party started a lawsuit against him..."
I don't see that as a big issue. The classification issue is principally between the employer and the state and federal government as a tax issue, and once it's decided that a person is an employee and not an independent contractor then labor laws apply without regard to whether or not the employee previously objected. The fact that somebody doesn't mind being classified as an independent contractor before problems arise can potentially be for a number of reasons including (a) ignorance, (b) belief that there's a tax advantage in the classification, (c) not wanting to rock the boat with an employer in a difficult job market, (d) etc....

Whether or not the person objected, "I should be classified as an employee", the fundamental question is how the person should have been classified under the law. We don't have the information necessary to evaluate that; vv88 is now working with a lawyer, so we don't need to worry about it.

The statement, "rights granted by law can't simply be waived by signing a contract", is obviously incorrect. Many legal rights can be waived, save for a few where a statute prohibits waiver or the right is deemed fundamental (e.g., in most contexts, an employer demand that you waive your civil rights so it can discriminate or ignore legal protections based upon race, religion, ethnicity, etc.) and thus not subject to waiver. The classification of workers is principally a matter of tax law, so in a big picture sense misclassification is not something you can "waive" between an employer and employee because the party most affected by improper classification is the state.