In Latest Case of California Officials Coming Down on Gig Companies, SF DA Hits DoorDash With Worker Misclassification Suit
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin on Tuesday announced an employee protection and unfair business practices action against DoorDash. The suit comes a little over a month after the state's attorney general and city attorneys in LA, SF and San Diego sued Uber and Lyft bringing misclassification claims and less than a week after a California regulator found the ride-sharing companies' drivers were employees.
June 16, 2020 at 04:06 PM
5 minute read
San Francisco's district attorney has joined a growing chorus of California regulators and enforcement officials taking aim at gig economy companies for what they see as the misclassification of workers as contractors.
District Attorney Chesa Boudin on Tuesday announced a lawsuit against delivery company DoorDash and that his office would be seeking a court order finding that the company should be treating its couriers as employees.
"It shouldn't require that. It shouldn't be necessary. But sadly we know that it is," Boudin said in a press conference announcing the lawsuit.
In a prepared statement Max Rettig, DoorDash's global head of public policy said that during the pandemic the company has allowed Californians from all walks of life to find flexible earnings opportunities averaging a few hours a week.
"Today's action seeks to disrupt the essential services Dashers provide, stripping hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, parents, retirees and other Californians of valuable work opportunities, depriving local restaurants of desperately needed revenue, and making it more difficult for consumers to receive prepared food, groceries, and other essentials safely and reliably," Rettig said. "We will fight to continue providing Dashers the flexible earning opportunities they say they want in these challenging times."
The district attorney's action comes less than a week after the California Public Utilities Commission found that drivers working for Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. should be classified as employees under California law.
It also follows another high-profile lawsuit filed last month against Uber and Lyft by California's attorney general and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco claiming that the companies misclassify drivers as contractors, allowing the companies to avoid millions of dollars in payroll taxes and skirt the responsibility to provide drivers benefits like health care, minimum wage and reimbursement for expenses. In that suit, Uber is represented by counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Lyft is represented by Keker, Van Nest & Peters. Before the recent wave of government enforcement actions, both firms frequently represented gig companies in worker misclassification lawsuits brought on behalf of private plaintiffs.
The district attorney's office suit against DoorDash claims that the company's couriers, or "Dashers" in the parlance of the delivery company, are central to the business.
"Dashers do no perform work that is merely incidental to the company's business," the local prosecutors wrote. "Quite the opposite, "Dashers' deliveries are integral to DoorDash's business and their work is a regular and continuing par of the business."
Boudin announced Tuesday's lawsuit during a Zoom news conference alongside assistant district attorney Scott Stillman, the lead prosecutor on the case who joined the DA's office after practicing as plaintiff-side labor and employment partner at the Law Offices of McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky in San Francisco, and California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, the author and sponsor of Assembly Bill 5, the state law passed last year codified the worker classification test laid out by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court. The state law ensures access to paid sick leave, disability, family leave and unemployment insurance for workers who should be qualified as employees under the so-called ABC test.
Stillman, who was brought into the office to head its new crimes against workers unit, said Tuesday that he hoped the office's action against DoorDash would cause other companies to take a look at their own practices and make adjustments accordingly.
"We hope that they do so voluntarily so that we don't have to be here in the future related to other companies," he said.
Boudin, however, said that he anticipated that Tuesday's action would be the "first of many" of its kind.
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 AllDoorDash Seeks More Information About NLJ 500 Firm's Connections With Chicago
4 minute readMonster Energy Takes on Beast Bites Over Alleged Trademark Violations
4 minute readA Sliver of Forever Chemical Allegations Allowed to Proceed Against Prime Hydration Beverage, Judge Rules
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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