Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Judge: California Ride-Hailing Law Is Unconstitutional
gvw_ap_news
By Associated Press
Published 4 years ago on
August 23, 2021

Share

LOS ANGELES — A judge Friday struck down a California ballot measure that exempted Uber and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services from a state law requiring drivers to be classified as employees eligible for benefits and job protections.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.

Voters approved the measure in November after Uber, Lyft and other services spent $200 million in its favor, making it the most expensive ballot measure in state history.

Uber said it planned to appeal, setting up a fight that could likely end up in the California Supreme Court.

“This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law,” company spokesman Noah Edwardsen said. “You don’t have to take our word for it: California’s attorney general strongly defended Proposition 22’s constitutionality in this very case.”

He said the measure will remain in force pending the appeal.

Judge Sides with Drivers and SEIU Lawsuit

The judge sided with three drivers and the Service Employees International Union in a lawsuit that argued the measure improperly removed the state Legislature’s ability to grant workers the right to access to the state workers’ compensation program.

“For two years, drivers have been saying that democracy cannot be bought. And today’s decision shows they were right,” said Bob Schoonover, president of the SEIU California State Council.

Proposition 22 shielded app-based ride-hailing and delivery companies from a labor law that required such services to treat drivers as employees and not independent contractors, who don’t have to receive benefits such as paid sick leave or unemployment insurance.

Uber and Lyft threatened to leave the state if voters rejected the measure.

Labor spent about $20 million to challenge the proposition.

The state Supreme Court initially declined to hear the case in February — mainly on procedural grounds — but left open the possibility of a lower court challenge.

RELATED TOPICS:

DON'T MISS

What Are Fresno Real Estate Experts Predicting for 2025 and Beyond?

UP NEXT

Is a Waxed Apple ‘Ultra-Processed?’ CA Bill Could Trigger a Lawsuit Barrage

Fresno Measure C Transportation Tax Talks Continue Amid Renewal Uncertainty

3 hours ago

Judge Bars Trump Administration From Detaining Mahmoud Khalil

3 hours ago

Life-Threatening Meals: Restaurants Would Identify Food Allergens for Diners Under This Proposed Law

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters. If Kim Nickols eats dairy, peanuts or wheat, her blood pre...

2 hours ago

2 hours ago

Life-Threatening Meals: Restaurants Would Identify Food Allergens for Diners Under This Proposed Law

2 hours ago

Iran Threatens to Strike US Bases in Region if Military Conflict Arises

3 hours ago

Trump Has Cut Science Funding to Its Lowest Level in Decades

3 hours ago

Fresno Measure C Transportation Tax Talks Continue Amid Renewal Uncertainty

3 hours ago

Judge Bars Trump Administration From Detaining Mahmoud Khalil

3 hours ago

Is a Waxed Apple ‘Ultra-Processed?’ CA Bill Could Trigger a Lawsuit Barrage

3 hours ago

Edmunds: These Five Vehicles Are Hidden Automotive Gems

3 hours ago

GM to Invest $4 Billion to Shift Some Production From Mexico to the US

Help continue the work that gets you the news that matters most.

Search

Send this to a friend