Judge Appears Unlikely to Halt California Law Against Uber, Postmates
At a hearing Friday, a federal judge appeared unlikely to grant a motion for preliminary injunction that Uber and Postmates filed to halt enforcement of AB5, which reclassified certain independent contractors as employees in California.
February 07, 2020 at 07:21 PM
4 minute read
Uber and Postmates appeared unlikely to convince a federal judge to halt enforcement of a California employment law that they claim would upend their ride-hailing businesses.
At a hearing Friday, Theane Evangelis, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Los Angeles office, said that California legislators targeted her clients and other ride-hailing firms when they passed Assembly Bill 5, which reclassified certain independent contractors as employees. Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, Evangelis, who also represents two drivers, sought a motion for preliminary injunction to halt the law, which became effective Jan. 1, as it pertained to her clients.
U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, who issued a tentative prior to the hearing, appeared unconvinced.
"I can't second guess the legislature," the judge said at the hearing, in Los Angeles. She said that while Uber and Postmates had presented evidence of "irreparable harm," they failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
Although limited to the motion for preliminary injunction, Friday's hearing drew spectators from Mobile Workers Alliance and Rideshare Drivers United, both of which support AB 5.
In a statement following Friday's hearing, Uber said, "State legislators had the opportunity to expand benefits for hundreds of thousands of independent workers in California, a step Uber has been advocating for and one that other states already have taken. Instead, they passed AB5 using a biased and overtly political process that ignored the voices of the workers most affected by the law and granted preferential treatment to an arbitrary group of industries. We are joining a growing group of companies and individuals suing to ensure that all workers are equally protected under the law and can freely choose the way they want to work."
Uber and Postmates have alleged in a lawsuit filed against the state of California on Dec. 30 that AB 5, passed Sept. 11 of last year, violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Contracts Clause and other constitutional provisions. They argued that California legislators specifically targeted "network companies," and that city and state officials have vowed to enforce the law against gig companies.
They got support for their preliminary injunction from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, two tech groups, and four independent contractors, including an aspiring actor and freelance screenwriter, who filed amicus briefs in the case.
At Friday's hearing, Evangelis tried to argue why AB5 would hurt not just her corporate clients but also individual drivers, who would lose the flexibility of their jobs if the state enforced the law. She also insisted that Uber and Postmates, which both dispute that the law applied to them, faced the threat of enforcement.
"While we don't admit or at all agree they're right, we are subject to the threat of enforcement," she said.
In challenging the statute, the judge told Evangelis her clients had "a very steep hill to climb." Moreover, the judge was not convinced that the state would enforce AB5 against Uber and Postmates.
"Right now, the law hasn't had an opportunity to be enforced," she said.
Further, she said, AB5 codified into law a California Supreme Court decision in 2018 called Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court, which set up a test to determine whether employees should be independent contractors or employees.
But Evangelis talked extensively about a "patchwork of exemptions" the legislature carved out from AB5, creating an "irrational scheme" that targeted her clients, but not other professions, like home cleaners or dog walkers. As a result, she said, her clients had demonstrated "serious questions" about the law.
"You have to show me that these are irrational," Gee replied.
California Deputy Attorney General Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, speaking for Attorney General Xavier Becerra in support of AB5, said legislators had to weigh which industries needed exemptions and which were taking advantage of their workers. He said that Uber and Postmates raised "very flimsy arguments."
The case is one of at least three lawsuits filed to halt enforcement of AB5. On Jan. 16, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction motion in a separate case brought by the California Trucking Association. In that case, he found that the plaintiff had raised a plausible argument that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempted AB5 as it pertained to motor carriers.
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
3 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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