Newsom Signs Landmark Gig Labor Bill, as Court Cases Loom
Uber's top lawyer said last week the new worker classification rules won't change the company's stance that its drivers are contractors, not employees. There's already a lawsuit challenging the defiance.
September 18, 2019 at 02:45 PM
5 minute read
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed landmark worker classification legislation that will make it more difficult for companies to label workers as independent contractors.
In a signing message, Newsom said that while Assembly Bill 5 is "an important step," he will continue negotiating with gig companies over a potential compromise that would give their workers benefits and organizing power without classifying them as employees.
"A next step is creating pathways for more workers to form a union, collectively bargain to earn more and have a stronger voice at work—all while preserving flexibility and innovation," Newsom wrote.
"In this spirit, I will convene leaders from the Legislature, the labor movement and the business community to support innovation and a more inclusive economy by stepping in where the federal government has fallen short and granting workers excluded from the National Labor Relations Act the right to organize and collectively bargain," the governor added.
The legislation largely codifies the California Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, which created a more worker friendly, three-pronged test for determining an employee's classification. That decision, along with Newsom's prior commitment to signing AB 5, has already spurred litigation targeting on-demand companies.
Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan sued Uber last week, citing the then-pending AB 5 and the Dynamex ruling in challenging the ride-hailing company's practice of classifying its drivers as independent contractors. Uber has yet to respond Liss-Riordan's motion for a preliminary injunction, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Uber's chief legal officer, Tony West, said last week that the company believes its workers can still qualify as independent contractors under the Dynamex ruling and AB 5. The company had no immediate plans to reclassify drivers and is considering its legal and political options, he said.
San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott last week also sued Instacart, alleging the San Francisco-based grocery delivery service misclassifies its workers based on the Dynamex test.
Meanwhile, the delivery company Postmates recently announced it would start providing accident insurance benefits to its drivers, Fisher & Phillips partner Jeffrey Smith said in a blog post the firm hosts about labor and employment issues affecting the gig economy.
"Some businesses have been hesitant to offer a full suite of typical workplace benefits to their gig workforce for fear it could lead to a misclassification finding," Smith wrote. He added: "But by providing this initial step of benefits, Postmates is hoping not to break that wall but instead make itself even more attractive to a pool of qualified and skilled workers."
Uber, Lyft and Doordash have threatened to finance a $90 million ballot initiative in 2020 that would undercut AB 5 if they cannot reach a compromise with state leaders that would keep their workers independent contractors.
AB 5 gives city attorneys in California's biggest municipalities the authority to seek injunctions against employers, an enforcement mechanism added by author Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, in an attempt to thwart arbitration agreements required by many gig employers.
The worker-classification law exempts numerous professions, including attorneys, doctors and even newspaper delivery workers, from the Dynamex test. In related litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court to consider whether the new labor laws should be applied retroactively.
"The fact that the Legislature recognized in AB 5—and in related legislation—that so many professions and industries include workers who are not appropriately classified as employees is strong evidence that the Dynamex decision should not apply to everyone and there are many industries that still need to be added," the California Chamber of Commerce said in a statement.
"Simply put, much work remains to be done on the Dynamex issue," the statement continued. "As such, the business community will be aggressively pursuing further exemptions next year.
California's worker classification debate has been closely watched by leaders in other states, including New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo said last week that "more people should be classified as employees … I don't want to lag California in anything."
Read more:
As California Passes Landmark Worker Rights Bill, a Familiar Foe Takes Aim at Uber
How Changes to California's Data-Privacy Rules Would Affect Employers
Uber's Top Lawyer Vows Fight as California Embraces Sweeping New Labor Rules
Late Changes to California Labor Bill Would Empower City Attorneys
New Bill Clears Path for Freelance Attorney Independent Contractor Status
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
© 2025 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 AllInvoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
4 minute readCalifornia's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
4 minute readWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Chief Judge Joins Panel Exploring Causes for Public's Eroding Faith in NY Legal System
- 2Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 3Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 4Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 5Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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