Gig Companies, Fearing Litigation 'Onslaught,' Press Fight Over Labor Ruling
"The time to act is now, before work opportunities are destroyed, and before the trial lawyers start crushing businesses with an onslaught of litigation," companies and business advocates contend, fighting a new California Supreme Court ruling that could upend the business models of gig companies.
August 06, 2018 at 06:24 PM
5 minute read
Gig companies and business groups are lobbying California Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers to quickly blunt the effects of an April ruling by the state Supreme Court that makes it tougher for employers to deny employee status to their workforce.
In a letter dated Aug. 6, dozens of companies and corporate trade groups pleaded with policymakers to “suspend or postpone the application of the Dynamex decision until all parties impacted by this decision can work together to develop a balanced test for determining independent contractor versus employee status that reflects the needs of California's economy and the workforce.”
Jennifer Barrera, senior vice president for policy at the California Chamber of Commerce, said the letter signers want the Legislature to pause the application of the Dynamex decision to anyone not involved in the case and to return to the so-called Borello worker classification test until it can draft a different solution.
“The time to act is now,” the letter continues, “before work opportunities are destroyed, and before the trial lawyers start crushing businesses with an onslaught of litigation.”
The letter's signatories include DoorDash Inc., Lyft Inc., Handy Technologies Inc., Instacart Inc., Postmates Inc., Uber Technologies Inc. and other platforms whose business models rely on fleets of independent contractors. The California Newspaper Publishers Association, of which The Recorder is a member, also signed on to the letter.
The letter attacks the unanimous ruling in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, which created a more rigid, three-prong “ABC” test to decide whether a worker is an employee entitled to statutory protections such as overtime pay, minimum wage and meal-and-rest breaks.
“The court was limited in the information it considered in its opinion, but the Legislature is not,” the companies wrote. “Legislative discussions and hearings that invite all stakeholders … could better identify a test for independent contractor versus employee.”
The letter follows a separate one, first reported by Bloomberg LP, sent to the Brown administration on July 23, asking the governor to bar state agencies from implementing the high court's new worker classification test and to pursue legislation to eliminate it. That letter was signed by DoorDash, Handy, Instacart, Lyft, Postmates, Square Inc., TaskRabbit Inc. and Total System Services Inc.
“The internet industry is concerned about the implications of the Dynamex ruling and its potential to jeopardize internet-enabled freelance work,” said Mahsau Daee, spokeswoman for the Internet Association, which represents several of the companies that signed the July 23 letter.
The governor's office has not commented about the requests to intervene. This year's legislative session ends on Aug. 31, and any attempt to pass a Dynamex-focused bill by then would be a tough chore in a labor-friendly Legislature.
“The chamber [of commerce] and the business groups are in full-fledged panic mode,” said Barry Broad, a lobbyist and the former legislative counsel for the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. “They want to make this ruling go away. But nobody in the Legislature is really interested in starting that.”
A coalition of labor groups sent its own letter to the governor and lawmakers last month, promising to oppose any attempt “to delay or alter” the Dynamex ruling.
After the Dynamex ruling was issued, business groups asked the state Supreme Court to clarify that its decision was not retroactive. Justices declined to issue any clarification. Plaintiffs lawyers hailed an Orange County Superior Court ruling in July that said the Dynamex test could be applied retroactively to a wage-claim case involving exotic dancers and the Anaheim-based company Imperial Showgirls.
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who has pursued a number of a misclassification suits against gig companies, sued Lyft and Postmates in May on behalf of workers, citing the Dynamex criteria. Liss-Riordan has also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in May to return an unsuccessful worker classification complaint against GrubHub Inc. to the trial court in light of the Dynamex ruling.
Read more:
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 AllCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readStock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Trending Stories
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