Copyright_unitysphere_123RF

Drivers for app-based, ride-hailing and delivery services filed a lawsuit on January 12 to overturn a California ballot initiative that makes them independent contractors instead of employees eligible for benefits and job protections.

The lawsuit filed with the California Supreme Court said Proposition 22 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of the legislature to grant workers the right to organize and excludes drivers from being eligible for workers’ compensation.

Read: Uber, Lyft spend big, win in California vote about drivers, benefits

The measure, which was passed in November with 58 per cent support, was the most expensive in state history with Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other services pouring $200 million in support of it. Labour unions, who joined drivers in the lawsuit, spent about $20 million to challenge it.

“Prop. 22 doesn’t just fail our state rideshare drivers, it fails the basic test of following our state constitution,” said Bob Schoonover of the Service Employees International Union. “The law, as written by Uber and Lyft, denies drivers rights under the law in California and makes it nearly impossible for lawmakers to fix these problems.”

Drivers bringing the lawsuit have several hurdles to clear, but their arguments are compelling, said Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean of McGeorge Law School in Sacramento. The first challenge is getting the California Supreme Court to take the case instead of kicking it to lower courts to weigh the facts. To do so, the high court would have to find the arguments are legal, not factual, and there is urgency to decide the issue, Moylan said. The second challenge is that courts have generally granted broad deference to voters to pass such initiatives.

Read: New Uber contract could have chilling effect on class action, says lawyer

“Generally speaking, courts in California don’t like to overturn the will of the people,” Moylan said. “But the petitioners’ claim is that the people did not really have the power to do what they did. There are instances where the California courts have come in and said . . .  it’s nice that this is what the people wanted to do, but our constitution doesn’t permit the people to do this.”

The lawsuit is the latest round in the high-stakes fight between labour and the titans of the gig economy, all based in San Francisco. Prop. 22 was written by Uber and Lyft, and supported by DoorDash Inc., Postmates Inc. and Instacart, to challenge the landmark labour law known as AB5 passed by Democrats in 2019. The bill expanded a California Supreme Court ruling limiting businesses from classifying certain workers as independent contractors.

Read: Uber Toronto drivers unionizing for minimum wage, sick and vacation days

Prop. 22 granted the delivery services an exemption from the law that would have required providing drivers with protections like minimum wage, overtime, health insurance and reimbursement for expenses. Under the measure, drivers remain independent contractors exempt from mandates such as sick leave and expense reimbursement but would receive “alternative benefits,” including a guaranteed minimum wage and subsidies for health insurance if they average 25 hours of work a week.

Uber and Lyft did not comment hours after being contacted. A group that supported the ballot initiative issued a statement criticizing the lawsuit as an effort to overturn the vote.

“Voters across the political spectrum spoke loud and clear, passing Prop. 22 in a landslide,” Jim Pyatt, an Uber driver in Modesto, said in the statement. “Meritless lawsuits that seek to undermine the clear democratic will of the people do not stand up to scrutiny in the courts.”

Read: Supreme Court sides with Uber driver seeking better pay, benefits

Copyright © 2021 Transcontinental Media G.P. Originally published on benefitscanada.com

Join us on Twitter

Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments that are thought to be disrespectful or offensive may be removed by our Benefits Canada admins. Thanks!

* These fields are required.
Field required
Field required
Field required