California AB5 Leaves Gig Companies' In-House Counsel in Labor Law Limbo
Gig economy companies in California could face classification complications from a bill advancing to the state Senate. While it's still too soon to tell what the final version will look like, labor lawyers said in-house counsel can start planning ahead.
May 31, 2019 at 02:28 PM
3 minute read
California clamped down on the gig economy this week, with the state Assembly's passage of a bill that could force ride-hailing, delivery and other service companies to reclassify workers or change their business model.
AB5 would codify the California Supreme Court's adoption of the worker-friendly ABC test to determine employee classification in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court—but it's not yet finalized, and labor lawyers note exemptions could still be added for some gig economy jobs. The bill's next headed to the state Senate.
“Don't expect the Senate to pass it as it currently sits … there might be some more exemptions that are built into it,” said Richard Meneghello, a partner at Fisher & Phillips who focuses on the gig economy. “That's where, if I'm at a company right now, where you need to be in a wait-and-see position because we don't really know what things are going to look like.”
Mike Warren, a partner at McManis Faulkner, suggested in-house counsel concerned aspects of the bill would hurt their business and workers should share their companies' perspective with lawmakers.
If finalized and passed as is, the bill would not exempt drivers at Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. from becoming employees. Both San Francisco-based ride-hailing companies which have faced misclassification suits from workers claiming employee status.
Under the ABC test, gig economy companies would have to show: workers perform their work free of the company's “control and direction,” complete work that is “outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business,” and that the worker is “engaged in an independently established trade.”
Stanford Law School professor William Gould said in the case of ride-hailing companies, drivers are supplying transportation and “the business of Uber and Lyft is transportation,” raising complications under the test.
“As long as the employee is able to show that he or she meets one of those ABC tests, then they're an employees,” Gould said. “The biggest problem [ride-hailing companies] are going to be confronted with is that these employees are performing work that is the essence of their business.”
Meneghello noted ride-hailing companies have argued they're in the business of maintaining an app that connects drivers and passengers rather than providing the ride.
For current classification status to hold up under AB5, as written, companies may need to reevaluate their relationship with workers and their business model, Warren said. If it's possible to change aspects of worker-company arrangements so that they more clearly fit the ABC test, Warren said in-house counsel should start those efforts now.
While it's still early for any major changes to business models, he and Meneghello said in-house counsel should have some idea about what steps their company would have to take if AB5 and the ABC test forced reclassification. That could include keeping workers classified as independent contractors and bracing for litigation or taking a look at what work could be moved to employee status.
“I don't think it's too soon to start sketching out some potential plans,” Meneghello said.
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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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