Uber driver Edward Nkansnh on California street in San Francisco on April 3, 2020. Nkansnh has suffered substantially less riders, instead replacing it with Uber Eats food delivery. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)
A California state court judge called the injunctive relief requested by a class of Uber drivers who claim they fear retaliation from the company over an upcoming ballot initiative “particularly repugnant to free speech rights.”
In an order Wednesday, Judge Richard Ulmer of San Francisco County Superior Court denied the drivers’ request for a temporary restraining order, which would have required the ridesharing company to inform all California drivers that it would not use any information it had gathered about how drivers plan to vote on Proposition 22 against them.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
