Rideshare App Drivers File Suit to Overturn California Prop 22 Measure

Rideshare App Drivers File Suit to Overturn California Prop 22 Measure.jpg

Some drivers for rideshare app drivers and delivery services filed a lawsuit to overturn a California Proposition 22, a ballot initiative making rideshare app drivers independent contractors rather than employees. The employee classification determines worker eligibility for benefits, and job protections applicable to common issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, etc. 

Rideshare App Drivers Wish to Overturn California Prop 22 Ballot Measure

The drivers filed the lawsuit with the California Supreme Court claiming that the ballot measure is unconstitutional since it limits the Legislature’s power to grant workers the right to organize and exclude drivers from workers’ compensation eligibility. 

The Ballot Measure: California Prop 22

Voters approved the ballot measure in November 2020 (with almost 60% of the vote). California Prop 22 received heavy financial support from major rideshare app companies like Uber and Lyft, amounting up to $200 million. Drivers opposing the proposition were joined by labor unions that spent approximately $20 million to challenge the proposition. 

California’s Prop 22: Challenged in Court

The proposition is the most expensive one in California history. Once Prop. 22 was certified, opposing groups could challenge it in court. Prop. 22 supporters insist voters spoke clearly when they passed the ballot measure in a landslide. The fate of Prop. 22 will be left to the state Supreme Court. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.


Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: 2021 Sees Several Key Cases Heading to the California Supreme Court

Vazquez v Jan-Pro Franchising International 2021 Sees Several Key Cases Heading to the California Supreme Court.jpg

While activity in the California courts was slow in 2020, there are several potentially significant cases on the horizon for 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state of California, including NVazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International. 

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (No. 17-16096 (9th Cir. 2019)). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Defendant in the case, Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. or Jan-Pro, licenses a system for marketing cleaning services to “regional master franchisees.” The corporation operates in multiple countries, including the USA. Regional master franchisees purchase a franchise that comes with exclusive operating rights in the designated “region.” Jan-Pro regional master franchisees are franchisors to “unit franchisees.” Jan-Pro has no contract in place with unit franchisees. Jan-Pro’s contracts are with master franchisors. Contracts with unit franchisees are between the unit franchisee and the master franchisor. Unit franchisees hire their own employees, and act according to their own devices. The Plaintiffs in this case, Vazquez, are former unit franchisees. Vazquez alleged that Jan-Pro’s three-tier business model was designed to misclassify janitors as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

The Plaintiff in the case, Vazquez, claims Jan-Pro violated employment law. The Plaintiff alleges that Jan Pro’s sophisticated three-tier franchising model was designed to misclassify workers. The district court dismissed the putative class of plaintiffs’ suit against the international business. The Ninth Circuit court vacated the district court’s dismissal, holding that Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), which resulted in the adoption of the now standard ABC test to determine classification of California employees per California wage order laws, applied retroactively. The Ninth Circuit court remanded the case to district court for consideration on the merits in light of Dynamex. Two additional orders were published in connection to the original order from the Ninth Circuit Court. The panel certified to the California Supreme Court the issue of retroactive application of Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The question the California Supreme Court will need to decide when hearing Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. is whether Dynamex v. Superior Court, the case that set forth the ABC test for classification of independent contractors, is applicable retroactively. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.: 

If the California Supreme Court finds that Dynamex is found to apply retroactively, it’s possible that California misclassification claims could be reopened all the way back to before the 2018 Dyamex resolution. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.


Will California Successfully Force Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers as Employers?

Will California Successfully Force Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers as Employers.jpg

In recent news, California seeks to force Uber and Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees – with a deadline only weeks out! Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file court documents that could make it happen. His office plans to seek a preliminary injunction against both massive rideshare companies. If the court agrees, both would be required to grant their drivers’ employment status while the lawsuit is still pending.

Should Rideshare Companies Own Up to Their Responsibilities?

Becerra feels it is time for the two rideshare companies to own up to their responsibilities and take care of the people who make them such a success – their drivers. By misclassifying drivers or other workers as consultants or independent contractors, employers like Uber and Lyft effectively pass responsibility for certain business costs on to their workers. In this scenario, workers or taxpayers end up footing the bill for employer obligations like paying a legal wage, paying overtime, offering sick leave, unemployment insurance, etc.

Do Rideshare Companies Intentionally Misclassify Drivers as Independent Contractors?

Last month, the group sued Uber and Lyft under the state’s gig work law, AB-5 accusing them of miscategorizing drivers as independent contractors. Earlier this month, the state regulator ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees under California law. Regardless, both rideshare conglomerates continuously defended their position that a mandatory reclassification of drivers would negatively impact their business models, cause a price increase, and leave drivers out of work.

Rideshare Companies Insist Drivers Want to be Independent Contractors

According to Uber and Lyft, most rideshare drivers want to be independent contractors. The companies have already made significant changes to their rideshare apps to retain their current business model under California law. Matthew Wing, an Uber spokesperson, even went so far as to call out California’s elected officials for focusing on “shutting down an entire industry” instead of trying to create work for the more than 3 million Californians currently without a job.                                            

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Does California Labor Law Apply to App Drivers or Not?

Does California Labor Law Apply to App Drivers or Not.jpg

Last year, California approved the strictest labor law in the country regarding when workers can be classified as independent contractors. Lawmakers intended to push businesses to add more freelancers and independent contractors to their payroll so they would have access to employee protections, benefits, minimum wage, etc. While the new law was praised by labor groups, it set off a string of lawsuits filed by drivers, independent contractors and freelance writers who claimed the new law left them out of work. 

Gig Economy Titans Mount Massive Resistance to New Law: 

In response to the new law, titans in the gig industry like Uber and Lyft have mounted massive resistance. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash are backing a ballot initiative set to go before voters in November. It’s a multimillion-dollar shot attempting to exclude the companies from the new law, so they won’t be required to give more benefits and wage protections to drivers/contractors. The three gig economy giants all committed to spend at least $30 million to promote the measure – hoping they can get California voters to exempt app-based drivers from the restrictions of the new law. It’s one of California’s most expensive ballot fights. The measure became eligible for the ballot after 623,000 signatures were collected. It’s possible that a success in California could serve as a national precedent. 

Gig Economy Giants Proposing a New Law: 

The massive gig economy giants want the keep the power to hire workers as independent contractors, and they’re proposing a new law that would give drivers who work more than 25 hours a week health coverage and benefits if they are injured while they’re on the job. Based on the new law included in the ballot measure, drivers would be able to work across any app and earn a base of 120% of the minimum wage (and more based on how many miles they drive).  

California Sued Uber and Lyft for Allegedly Misclassifying Drivers

At the beginning of May 2020, the state of California sued Uber and Lyft for allegedly misclassifying drivers as contractors. The Protect App-Based Drivers & Services coalition leading the ballot initiative claims to represent 60,000 drivers and claims that the lawsuit would lead to unnecessary job losses during the Covid-19 pandemic-induced recession. 

If you need to discuss misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

How is California’s Labor Bill AB5 Affecting the Covid-19 Crisis?

How is Californias Labor Bill AB5 Affecting the Covid19 Crisis.jpg

In the current landscape, many of California’s independent contractors and freelancers claim Labor Bill AB5 adds fuel to the fire during the Covid-19 crisis as it further restricts work opportunities.

Unprecedented Unemployment During Covid-19 Has Many Looking at AB5:

The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in unprecedented levels of unemployment across California. With more workers being laid off every day, thousands are starting to look at California Labor Bill AB5 and claim it is making the economic outlook worse.

How Does California Labor Bill AB5 Affect California Amid Covid-19 Crisis?

Legislators, business owners, and many economists are starting to claim that the 2019 bill impedes the state economy and places a burden on the health care system at a point when it is already strained by the novel coronavirus and resulting Covid-19 crisis. According to local media, many hospitals rely on independent contractors to provide health services (particularly in rural areas). With thousands of California workers facing Covid-19 pandemic inspired unemployment, AB5 leaves them in a tight spot, where it’s close to impossible to take on temp jobs from home.

Will the Governor Suspend AB5 Amid Rising Unemployment Due to Covid-19?

Republican candidate for the 50th Congressional District, Darrell Issa, asked Governor Newsom to suspend AB5, insisting that independent contractors and freelancers should be allowed to work. Over 17,000 have joined the Freelancers Against AB5 Facebook, claiming the new law strips them of their freedom, flexibility, and livelihood. As other politicians join the fray calling for the bill to be repealed, the governor has so far not relented. In response to the governor’s response, petitioners are circulating. One such petition, called Freedom to Work, calls upon citizens to “Repeal AB5 Now” and “join the fight!”

California Labor Bill AB5 Was Designed to Address Rampant Workplace Violations in the Gig Economy:

Legislators designed AB5 to protect more than one million gig economy freelancers by making them eligible for benefits. Under AB5, employers are required to meet strict requirements to classify workers as independent contractors (who do not qualify for employment benefits like health insurance, and unemployment). Even before the coronavirus made itself known, AB5 was inspiring widespread layoffs as companies couldn’t meet the increase in labor costs. When coronavirus arrived on the scene, thousands of California’s freelance workers were already out of work.

California Workforce Calling for Flexible Employment Amid Covid-19 Crisis: 

Lorena Gonzalez, the bill’s author, created the law to push employers to recognize their independent contractors as employees, which would make them eligible for employee benefits. Still, many independent contractors believe the bill backfired and that it takes their rights away. Many Californians are calling for change, insisting that right now, it’s more important than ever to have access to flexible employment. Consumers need to be connected by the services many of these independent contractors provide during the crisis, from online tutors to food delivery drivers and even online health professionals. Activists seeking a repeal of AB5 insist that if the goal is minimizing economic damage, AB5 makes no sense, and is hurting the state’s response to the virus.

If you need to talk to someone about employment law violations related to AB5 or Covid-19, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Kim. V. Reins International California, Inc. Decision & Settling PAGA Claims

Kim V Reins International California Inc Decision Settling PAGA Claims.jpg

What does the California Supreme Court decision in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (Case No. S246911) indicate about settling PAGA claims? The critical decision was given on March 12, 2020, but before discussing the decision and what it says about settling PAGA claims, consider the details of the case. 

In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.:

The Plaintiff in the case, Justin Kim, settled his individual claims against his employer and then attempted to move forward with his PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) against his employer (Reins). Reins employed Kim as a training manager classified as exempt. Kim filed suit against Reins in a putative class action alleging that Reins, the employer, misclassified training managers. Kim alleged multiple employment law violations including:

  • Failure to pay wages and overtime

  • Failure to provide meal and rest breaks

  • Failure to provide accurate wage statements

  • Waiting time penalties

  • Unfair competition

  • Civil penalties under the PAGA 

Reins Immediate Response to Allegations of Employment Law Violations:

Reins moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and dismissed the class claims. Their action was based on an arbitration agreement and class action waiver that Kim signed at the time of hiring. The trial court ordered arbitration of all claims, except for the PAGA claim. The court also ordered the injunctive relief portion of the unfair competition claim and stayed the PAGA litigation until individual claims litigation was finished. When individual claims were settled, Reins moved for summary adjudication in the PAGA action based on the settlement agreement that resolved Kim’s individual claims, which meant Kim was no longer an “aggrieved employee” under the PAGA.

Does Settling Individual Claims Mean Kim is No Longer an Aggrieved Employee?

The trial court agreed that Kim was longer an “aggrieved employee” eligible under the PAGA, ruling that Kim’s decision to settle his individual claims with the employer precluded him from continuing forward with PAGA claims. (Under the PAGA statute, an individual must be an “aggrieved employee” to qualify.) Kim took the issue to the appeals court, where they agreed with the previous ruling of the trial court found that by accepting the settlement and dismissing his individual claims, Kim acknowledged he no longer maintained Labor-Code-based claims against the company.

The Supreme Court’s Decision & PAGA Claims:

But the California Supreme Court ruled that Kim, a PAGA plaintiff, can continue litigation of a PAGA action after settling individual claims. The case and the Supreme Court’s decision have some employers worried about how future allegations may be handled.

If you need to talk to someone about employment law violations or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

As Lawsuit Plays Out, Uber and Postmates Dealt a Blow

As Lawsuit Plays Out, Uber and Postmates Dealt a Blow.jpg

Uber and Postmates were dealt a blow in the ongoing legal battle when a California federal judge denied their request for a temporary stop to AB 5. The two big companies were hoping to receive a reprieve from California’s new gig worker law.

The companies requested a temporary stop to AB 5, while a lawsuit they filed against California state worked its way through the legal system. The federal judge denied their request, leaving both gig companies obligated to comply with the law, which could mean reclassifying drivers as employees. US District Judge Dolly M. Gee noted that the court does not necessarily doubt the sincerity of the individual views presented, but that second-guessing a law designed to improve working conditions for nonexempt low-income workers is not warranted.

What is AB 5, and What Does it Mean for California Workers?

AB 5 is all about worker classification with a focus on gig economy workers. Gig economy companies are full of independent contractors. Gig economies profoundly affected by the legislation include Uber, Lyft, Postmates, DoorDash, etc. While some prize being classified as independent contractors because it offers more flexibility, it often means that drivers and other workers are shouldering many of the costs of their employment for their employers.

For example, Uber drivers pay for:

  • Their vehicle

  • Their phone

  • Their gas

  • Their vehicle maintenance

Additionally, Uber drivers do not receive access to essential benefits, minimum-wage guarantees, overtime pay for hours worked above 8 in one day, or 40 in one week or health insurance.

AB 5’s Three-Part Test to Determine Reclassification:

Under the new legislation, AB 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, California employers using independent contractors must undergo a three-part test to determine if they will be required to reclassify their workers. Companies that don’t pass the test must reclassify their workers as employees instead of independent contractors. Many California employers fear the new legislation will significantly harm their businesses as the management of large workforces is expensive. For example, an analysis by Barclays in June 2019 concluded that Uber’s reclassification of drivers from independent contractors to employees would cost the company about $500 million annually. A similar move would cost competitor rideshare company, Lyft, an approximate $290 million annually.

California Businesses Respond to AB 5 Legislation:

In response to the legislation, a growing group of companies and individuals are suing the state to make sure all workers receive equal protection under the law and can choose how they want to work. The response was filed by Uber, Postmates, and two gig workers, Lydia Olson and Miguel Perez. The lawsuit was filed against the state at the end of 2019 in an attempt to have AB 5 declared invalid. The lawsuit filed in response to California’s new gig economy legislation alleges that AB 5 is unconstitutional. It also asserts that the new law unfairly targets gig economy workers and companies. The group requested a preliminary injunction against AB 5 to stop it from being applied to them until their case makes its way through the court. Judge Gee denied the injunction.

Other Responses to AB 5 Across California:

Similar lawsuits have been filed against the state by other groups including truck drivers, journalists, etc. Those actively seeking to prevent AB 5 from sticking around insist that the legislation would harm the industries in which they would apply and the workers in those industries. Uber and Postmates are weighing their options and considering an appeal to Gee’s decision. Postmates sees it as a procedural decision on the preliminary injunction only and not an indication of the court’s potential decision once the full case is presented.

If you have questions about how California’s AB 5 legislation will affect your workplace or if you need to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.