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."
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 AllAdvisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
3 minute readSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 2Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 3Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 4'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 5Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
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