FAS’s right to control the class members, not other workers that may have serviced FAS properties. FAS’s liability here will be limited to those vendors designated by FAS, and plaintiffs point to substantial evidence that FAS not only retained a right to control their work, but actually exercised it. Second, FAS requires vendors to administer “background screening guidelines” for any employee a Vendor utilizes for an FAS job. See, e.g., 2014 Vendor Qualification Packet (Duckworth Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 6, Dkt. No. 155-7 at 11). And it retains the right to request the results of vendors’ screenings and conduct background checks of vendors’ employees “at its sole discretion.” Id. (Dkt. No. 155-7 at 12). This further supports plaintiffs’ position. Borello, 256 Cal.Rptr. 543, 769 P.2d at 408 n. 9 (<HOLDING>); Ruiz, 754 F.3d at 1102-03 (“While the
holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that a contract provision restricting sharefarmers right to choose employees evidenced defendants right to control sharefarmers recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right