Another Judge Turns Back Lyft Driver Worker Reclassification Attempt Amid Pandemic
San Francisco Superior Judge Ethan Schulman denied a motion that would have reclassified Lyft drivers as employees, so that they can reap the state's paid sick leave, agreeing with a federal judge who found that such a ruling would jeopardize drivers' access to federal coronavirus relief.
May 01, 2020 at 05:09 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A California state court judge has refused to grant an emergency motion in a case against Lyft Inc. that would reclassify drivers as employees, so that they can take advantage of state-mandated paid sick leave during the coronavirus pandemic.
In an order Thursday, Judge Ethan Schulman of San Francisco County Superior Court denied the Lyft drivers' emergency motion for preliminary injunction and granted motions brought by Lyft's Keker, Van Nest & Peters counsel to compel arbitration and stay the case.
Schulman agreed with U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria of the Northern District of California, who remanded the case to state court in April after finding that granting the motion could mean Lyft drivers would lose out on "thousands of dollars" of relief designated for independent contractors in federal coronavirus legislation.
Schulman said plaintiffs counsel at Lichten & Liss-Riordan failed to address the essential point of Chhabria's decision: "the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs seek would provide at most … modest benefits to a small subset of Lyft drivers, while potentially risking the eligibility of all Lyft drivers to receive substantially greater relief under the emergency federal legislation," he wrote.
Schulman contended that if he granted the motion, the maximum of three days of paid sick leave would be paltry, with records showing that about 41% of the drivers might not receive any time off at all, compared with the two weeks of paid time off and $600 a week in unemployment compensation from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
The judge also noted "well-grounded" concerns expressed in an amicus brief submitted by former California Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who argued that granting the motion would "undermine or interfere with legislative efforts to extend relief in the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic."
Lichten & Liss-Riordan's Shannon Liss-Riordan said she was disappointed by the decision and has already filed an appeal.
"The judge took Lyft at its word that obtaining sick pay benefits under state law would somehow risk drivers not being able to obtain the new federal benefits, and that's just not correct," she wrote in an email. "It is also unconscionable for Lyft to refuse to comply with California law that obviously applies to it and attempt to shift its burden to the federal government and ultimately taxpayers."
She also said she was surprised that the judge took into consideration "the clearly political" amicus brief from the governors.
"We noted that Governors Schwarzenegger's and Davis' former chief of staff Susan Kennedy now works for Lyft and she was fined more than $30,000 several years ago for not registering as a lobbyist for Lyft," she wrote.
Although amicus briefs are somewhat unusual in superior court, Benjamin Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles and counsel to the governors, said that the Lyft drivers' action was important enough for the former politicians to share their input.
"Govs. Davis and Schwarzenegger care deeply about California, understand California's economy and recognized that the emergency public injunction the plaintiffs sought was unwarranted and would be harmful under the circumstances of COVID-19," Shatz said in an email. "We were very pleased the Court granted permission for the amicus brief and even happier that the brief was useful in the Court's analysis."
He also emphasized that the case was about "forced reclassification in the middle of a national emergency, not about sick leave."
A representative for Lyft declined to comment directly on the decision.
Earlier this week, Lichten & Liss-Riordan and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher announced that, after nine sessions of mediation with U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, they resolved an identical complaint against Uber Technologies Inc. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California ordered the parties to meet in order to come up with a solution that makes it easier for drivers to take advantage of Uber's coronavirus relief programs without having to access overburdened and sometimes costly health care providers. As part of the agreement, Uber rolled out another financial assistance program that allows eligible California drivers to collect $360 in financial assistance without having to show a letter from a health official or doctor, as previous policies mandated.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 2First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 3The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 4Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 5What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250