Gig-Worker Classification in the Age of COVID-19
Gig workers, like other Americans, are feeling the strain of the COVID-19 health crisis and economic slowdown, and gig-economy companies should do all they can to help the workers through these trying times.
April 03, 2020 at 05:52 PM
5 minute read
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, gig-economy companies have adapted quickly to Americans' changing needs. Uber announced this week that it is launching a grocery-delivery service. Rideshare competitors Didi and Pronto similarly announced last week that they had created grocery-shopping platforms. And Lyft recently reported that it was piloting restaurant and medical-supply delivery platforms.
These rapid shifts demonstrate what Silicon Valley investors have long known: that gig-economy companies—whatever their particular focus—are fundamentally technology platforms, uniquely designed to connect people who need various goods and services with people who can provide them. To think of these companies as merely "transportation" or "food delivery" companies is to misunderstand their business models and underestimate their capabilities.
This proper conceptualization of gig-economy companies as technology companies has important implications under California's recently enacted labor law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5). Under AB 5, workers must be classified as employees and not independent contractors unless they "perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business." Cal. Labor Code §2750.3(a)(1)(B).
For that reason, when AB 5 was enacted, many politicians and commentators—including Governor Newsom and bill sponsor Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez—declared it the end of the gig-economy business model, in which workers using the platforms are typically treated as independent contractors. Just last week, the City of San Francisco echoed that view, calling on the State's district attorneys to force gig-economy companies to "comply" with AB 5 by reclassifying gig workers as employees.
But AB 5 did not order the reclassification of gig workers. Rather, AB 5 codified an independent-contractor test—called the "ABC test"—that has been around for many years in several states. And, as the COVID-19 crisis has helped demonstrate, all three factors of the test favor treating gig workers as independent contractors.
Prong A asks whether the worker is "free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work." Of course, few workers have as much freedom and flexibility as gig workers. Gig companies generally do not require workers to be available at any particular times, show up in any particular place, or accept any particular work. With coronavirus depressing demand for traditional rideshare in certain areas, gig workers have complete autonomy to shift to other platforms offering new opportunities, such as grocery shopping or medical-supply delivery. A traditional employee could never make those types of choices because the company would decide how to redeploy resources in top-down fashion.
Prong B, as mentioned above, asks whether the worker and the company are engaged in the same "course of … business." Recent events prove more than ever that, in the gig economy, they are not. A rideshare driver might consider herself to be in the transportation business, but the company that operates that rideshare platform likely also operates platforms for grocery shopping, restaurant delivery, catering, long-haul freight, non-emergency medical transport, and/or "virtual kitchens"—all types of virtual marketplaces that connect people, products, and services. That is because, as the U.S. Department of Labor has correctly concluded, these companies are technology companies: "the business's 'primary purpose' is not to provide services to end-market consumers, but to provide a referral system that connects service providers with consumers." Their employees are the software engineers writing the code that runs their platforms, not the people who use their apps.
Prong C asks whether the worker is "engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business." Again, the ongoing health crisis confirms that gig workers are independent business owners—entrepreneurs who seek to earn money by providing a variety of services on numerous platforms, wherever the right opportunity arises. During the recent debates over the COVID-19 economic stimulus bill, many legislators and commentators addressed gig-economy work as a unique occupation, and the CARES Act even makes small business loans available to gig workers, recognizing them as operators of independently established business.
Of course, gig workers, like other Americans, are feeling the strain of the COVID-19 health crisis and economic slowdown, and gig-economy companies should do all they can to help the workers through these trying times. But no gig worker will lose his or her job because of the crisis—not in any traditional sense. Rather, when the demand for rideshare and other services returns, they will be able to provide their services by clicking on the app, just as they did before. That is the hallmark of an independent contractor.
Joshua S. Lipshutz and Michael Holecek are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and represent several gig-economy companies in misclassification litigation around the country.
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 AllSchools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
5 minute readElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
'The Front Line of Regulating AI': Manatt's Brandon Reilly on CPPA's Move to Adopt New Data Broker and AI Rules
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Which Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
- 2Two Tesla Shareholder Cases in Del. Chancery Court Consolidated
- 3Your Opinion Matters: Annual Managing Partner Survey
- 4Civility for the New Generation
- 5The Future of Law: Harnessing AI Without Compromising Integrity
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