SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
san diego
Major 'Milestone' for Workers as California Judge Rules Uber and Lyft Must Classify Drivers as Employees
"This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard—and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day—to provide for their families."
Aug 11, 2020
In a move that local political leaders and labor rights advocates celebrated as a major win for gig workers, a California judge ruled Monday that the ride-hailing companies Lyft and Uber must classify drivers in the state as employees rather than independent contractors to comply with state law.
"The years-long ploy of these behemoth corporations to stall, obfuscate, and flat-out break the law has failed. There must be no more delays."
--Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman's decision (pdf) came in a case filed against Lyft and Uber in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, who accused the companies of violating Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last year.
"The court has weighed in and agreed: Uber and Lyft need to put a stop to unlawful misclassification of their drivers while our litigation continues," Becerra said in a statement responding to Schulman's preliminary injunction, which is stayed for 10 days to allow for legal appeals.
"While this fight still has a long way to go, we're pushing ahead to make sure the people of California get the workplace protections they deserve," Becerra added. "Our state and workers shouldn't have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities. We're going to keep working to make sure Uber and Lyft play by the rules."
\u201c#BREAKING: the court ruled that Uber and Lyft must put a stop to driver misclassification while our litigation continues.\n\nOur state and workers shouldn\u2019t have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities.\u201d— Archive - Attorney General Becerra (@Archive - Attorney General Becerra) 1597092593
If the ride-hailing companies are forced to permanently reclassify drivers under AB 5--which went into effect at the start of this year--they could be required to provide workers with protections and benefits including minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave, disability, healthcare, and unemployment insurance.
Becerra and the city attorneys filed suit after facing mounting pressure from Lyft and Uber drivers that increased in the midst up Covid-19 pandemic, which led drivers to endure plummeting incomes due to declining demand and greater health risks related to their work.
"This is a resounding victory for thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers who are working hard--and, in this pandemic, incurring risk every day--to provide for their families," Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said of Schulman's ruling. "Of course, our fight is not over and we will vigorously pursue this litigation until these workers have the permanent protection they deserve."
San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott called the judge's decision "a milestone in protecting workers and their families from exploitation by Uber and Lyft."
"I'm proud to be in this fight to hold greedy billion-dollar corporations accountable, especially when a pandemic makes their withholding of healthcare and unemployment benefits all the more burdensome on taxpayers," Elliott added.
The news was also welcomed in a statement from Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, which has championed AB 5.
"The years-long ploy of these behemoth corporations to stall, obfuscate, and flat-out break the law has failed," Pulaski said. "There must be no more delays. We demand these companies immediately adhere to this ruling and provide their drivers with the protections and benefits they so richly deserve."
\u201cIn September 2019, CA Gov @GavinNewsom signed a law requiring @Uber + @lyft to treat their drivers as real employees (and give them real benefits).\n\nIn August 2020, 11 months later, @Uber + @lyft still have yet to comply with the law.\nhttps://t.co/BONbzS9ort\u201d— Jobs With Justice (@Jobs With Justice) 1597155361
Lyft and Uber are expected to continue fighting against AB 5's classification requirements under the guise of proving flexibility to drivers--even though, as San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera explained Monday, "there is no rule that prevents these drivers from continuing to have all of the flexibility they currently enjoy. Being properly classified as an employee doesn't change that."
Uber spokesperson Davis White said in a statement that "the vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we've already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law."
Lyft spokesperson Julie Wood claimed that "drivers do not want to be employees, full stop." She said that the ride-hailing giant will "immediately appeal this ruling" and, in an apparent reference to a state ballot measure backed by companies that employ gig workers, "we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers."
DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber have each poured at least $30 million into the ballot initiative, "with additional support from Instacart and Postmates, which Uber recently agreed to acquire," CNN Businessreported Monday. "If passed, it would exempt them from the AB 5 law, but offer drivers some benefits."
CNN pointed out that the judge's ruling comes after the California Labor Commissioner's Office last week "filed lawsuits against Uber and Lyft for allegedly committing wage theft by misclassifying their on-demand workers as independent contractors instead of employees."
The companies are also facing off against similar efforts at a national level. Bloomberg noted that "legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled U.S. House in February, and backed by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, would apply a standard like California's to federal labor law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Gig Workers Struggle Amid Outbreak, California Sues Lyft and Uber for Refusing to Classify Drivers as Employees
"Californians who drive for Uber and Lyft lack basic worker protections... Sometimes it takes a pandemic to shake us into realizing what that really means and who suffers the consequences."
May 05, 2020
After months of pressure from Lyft and Uber drivers, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco on Tuesday sued the ride-hailing companies for refusing to classify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors in violation of Assembly Bill 5, the historic labor rights legislation that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last year.
As the coronavirus pandemic has led to lockdowns around the world, ride-hailing drivers have faced plunging incomes and health risks related to their work. Lyft, Uber, and other gig companies have resisted reclassifying their workers, which could mean providing labor protections and benefits such as minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave, and disability, healthcare, and unemployment insurance.
The lawsuit (pdf), filed in the Superior Court of San Francisco, accuses Lyft and Uber of breaking the law by misclassifying drivers, "even amid a once-in-a-century pandemic," at the expense of their "workers, law-abiding businesses, taxpayers, and society more broadly." The case calls for an immediate end to the misclassification schemes and could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties.
"Californians who drive for Uber and Lyft lack basic worker protections--from paid sick leave to the right to overtime pay. Uber and Lyft claim their drivers aren't engaged in the companies' core mission and cannot qualify for benefits," Becerra said in a statement. "Sometimes it takes a pandemic to shake us into realizing what that really means and who suffers the consequences."
\u201cCalifornia law uses the "ABC Test" to protect workers against misclassification. @Uber and @lyft simply don't pass the test - meaning their workers deserve benefits like paid sick leave, disability insurance, & more.\n\nWe're going to court to get these employees what they deserve.\u201d— Archive - Attorney General Becerra (@Archive - Attorney General Becerra) 1588705724
"Uber and Lyft drivers who contract the coronavirus or lose their job quickly realize what they're missing. But it's not just these workers who lose," Becerra added. "American taxpayers end up having to help carry the load that Uber and Lyft don't want to accept. These companies will take the workers' labor, but they won't accept the worker protections. California has ground rules with rights and protections for workers and their employers. We intend to make sure that Uber and Lyft play by the rules."
City attorneys echoed Becerra's charge that impacts of the misclassifications are felt by not only drivers but all California residents. Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said the that ride-hailing companies "exploit their drivers, and unlawfully shift the costs of their responsibilities as employers to California's taxpayers."
"Uber and Lyft are billion-dollar companies that refuse to follow the rules, expecting taxpayers to pick up the slack when their employees get sick, need a hospital, or lose their jobs," added San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott. "It's time for Uber and Lyft to pay their own bills."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he has been working with Becerra, Feuer, and Elliott's offices for months to build the case. Herrera noted that Lyft and Uber are headquartered in his city, and challenged the companies' claims about AB 5.
"Uber and Lyft claim that properly classifying drivers as employees is incompatible with flexibility. That is a lie," he said. "There is no legal reason why Uber and Lyft can't have a vast pool of employees who decide for themselves when and where they work--exactly as drivers do now. These companies simply don't want to do it. Uber and Lyft are selling a lie. They are lying to the public and lying to their drivers."
The New York Timesreported that "the lawsuit comes at a fraught moment for Uber and Lyft, as the businesses struggle to adapt to the sudden decline in demand caused by the pandemic. Consumer data suggests that spending on ride-hailing has dropped as much as 83%. Lyft is expected to report its first-quarter earnings on Wednesday, while Uber reports on Thursday."
In response to the lawsuit, Lyft said in a statement that the company is "looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever."
Uber delivered a more forceful rebuke, vowing in a statement to fight against the long anticipated legal action.
"At a time when California's economy is in crisis with four million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning," Uber said. "We will contest this action in court, while at the same time pushing to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
San Diego Sues Monsanto for Polluting Bay With Banned Carcinogenic Chemicals
Lawsuit says toxins manufactured by agrochemical giant 'have been found in Bay sediments and water and have been identified in tissues of fish, lobsters, and other marine life'
Mar 17, 2015
San Diego authorities filed a lawsuit on Monday against the agrochemical giant Monsanto, accusing the corporation of polluting the city's bay with carcinogenic chemicals that are so dangerous to human health they were banned in the U.S. more than 30 years ago.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court by City of San Diego and San Diego Unified Port District and focuses on Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). "PCBs manufactured by Monsanto have been found in bay sediments and water and have been identified in tissues of fish, lobsters, and other marine life in the Bay," the complaint reads.
"PCB contamination in and around the Bay affects all San Diegans and visitors who enjoy the Bay, who reasonably would be disturbed by the presence of a hazardous, banned substance in the sediment, water, and wildlife," the document continues.
As the San Diego Reader notes, the city's lawsuit charges that "the risks did not deter Monsanto from trying to protect profits and prolong the use of PCB compounds such as Aroclor, as shown in a report from an ad hoc committee that Monsanto formed in 1969."
This is despite the fact that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, PCBs "have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, and endocrine system." Dangers to human health led to a domestic ban on the domestic manufacture of PCBs in 1979.
By that time, however, PCBs had already spread through ecosystems, where they have remained to the present-day.
Monsanto was responsible for 99 percent of U.S. production of this dangerous chemical, according to a report from Food & Water Watch.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular