<![CDATA[lyft]]>

California’s Ninth Circuit Issues Another Body Blow to AB5

March 19, 2023 by Jennifer Oliver OConnell Leave a Comment

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is on a tear this week, dismantling the court rulings that have supported AB5, the so-called California gig workers law. Crafted to target rideshare companies and the trucking industry, since AB5 was signed into law in 2019, it has upended the careers of approximately 4.5 million freelancers, independent contractors, and the self-employed, and destroyed the independent contractor model in the state.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit overturned a Superior Court of Alameda decision that deemed California’s Proposition 22, which allowed rideshare drivers to maintain their status as independent contractors, unconstitutional. Proposition 22 was placed on the November 2022 ballot and approved by a wide margin. It also helped to gut AB5 and set precedent to discourage similar laws being drafted in other states, which is why Big Labor and their allies in the California Attorney General’s office continue to try and overturn the will of the voters as well as mount challenges to any lawsuit brought.

The Ninth Circuit bookended the week of bad news for proponents of AB5 by serving them yet another defeat.

The 9th Circuit has issued a scathing rebuke of Newsom and the Legislature. The court advanced a case alleging AB 5 is unconstitutional and rooted in “corruption, pure spite, or naked favoritism.”
— Kevin Kiley (@KevinKileyCA) March 18, 2023

A U.S. appeals court on Friday revived a lawsuit by Uber Technologies Inc (UBER.N) and subsidiary Postmates Inc challenging a California law that would require them to provide more proof that workers are independent contractors, a classification that helps the companies save millions.
In a major win for app-based services that heavily rely on contractors, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state must face claims that the law known as AB5 is unconstitutional because it improperly singles out app-based transportation businesses while exempting many other industries.

The decision gave further weight to what opponents of AB5 have been saying all along: If you can carve out exemptions for one group, but exclude others with no solid or consistent basis, then your law is not worth the paper it is written upon. Karen Anderson, journalist and founder of the Facebook group Freelancers Against AB5 wrote in 2021:

To date, approximately 100 professions and industries in California have been exempted from Assembly Bill 5, either in the original law that went into effect on January 1, 2020, or in the “fix-it” bill (Assembly Bill 2257) that followed nine months later. The arbitrary exemption process picks winners and losers, and has resulted in nothing less than total chaos, anguish, upheaval, outrage, lost livelihoods, shuttered businesses, and a slew of lawsuits.

Thanks to the arbitrary nature of the exemptions, the Ninth Circuit has deemed that the lawsuits, even the ones that had been previously rejected or dismissed, must now be reconsidered.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday said the “piecemeal fashion” of the exemptions to the law was enough to keep Uber’s lawsuit alive.
“The exclusion of thousands of workers from the mandates of AB5 is starkly inconsistent with the bill’s stated purpose of affording workers the ‘basic rights and protections they deserve,’” Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote for then court.
The court said the federal judge in Los Angeles who dismissed the case must also reconsider her earlier ruling declining to block AB5 pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

This is how Governor Gavin Newsom lost the pandemic lawsuits brought by houses of worship: because there was a clear pattern of preferential treatment given to secular gatherings like entertainment shows, while discriminating against religious gatherings. The constitutional right to freedom of religion and assembly was upheld by the courts. Thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, rideshare and app-based independent contractors, as well as the trucking industry and journalists, can potentially revive their challenges, and new challenges based on constitutional grounds can be brought.

Attorney General Rob Bonta issued this statement to Reuters regarding the Ninth Circuit decisions:

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that it was reviewing the decision and assessing its next steps.
“We will continue to defend laws that are designed to protect workers and ensure fair labor and business practices,” Bonta’s office said.

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

BREAKING: Uber, Lyft, and the Gig Economy Score Legal Win in California Courts

March 13, 2023 by Joe Cunningham Leave a Comment

Companies that rely on the gig economy model for workers scored a big win in courts Monday after an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that previously found Proposition 22 illegal.

Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin in November 2020, exempting app-based gig economy drivers from California’s terrible AB5 law and allowing them to continue to work as independent contractors. However, almost a year later, it was ruled unconstitutional by a California court.

But a legal challenge to that ruling carried on, and a year and a half later, those app-based companies scored a victory, according to the Wall Street Journal.

A state appeals court reversed a lower-court ruling that found a California ballot measure known as Proposition 22 illegal. Proposition 22, which passed in November 2020, allowed these companies to continue to treat their drivers as independent contractors.
Uber and others are in a global tug of war with regulators over whether and how to grant more benefits such as paid sick leave and health insurance to workers in the so-called gig economy, where apps distribute individual tasks to a pool of people whom companies generally regard as independent contractors.

A group of ride-share drivers, along with labor unions, challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 22, and the original movement to pass AB5 was largely labor union driven. But the will of the voters, many of whom either are contractors for app-based companies or related to people who are, sought to push back on that legislation, which would have crippled those businesses and forced job losses.

California Gig Economy — AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

The ruling is part of a much larger fight that isn’t just restricted to California. House Democrats in Washington D.C. have also sought to pass similar legislation based on the California model, which would serve as a big win for labor unions at the expense of workers. At the time of the original fight over AB5, Uber and Lyft threatened to suspend their business in California rather than completely upend their business model.

Similar devastating results could be seen throughout the country if the Democrats are ever able to force a measure like that nationwide.

Father of murder victim aims to undo Lyft, Uber’s “driver disarmament” policies

February 14, 2023 by Cam Edwards Leave a Comment

I’ve written before about the unconscionable policies of rideshare companies Uber and Lyft, which forbid both drivers and passengers from possessing firearms. If a driver is discovered with a gun, even if they used it to defend themselves, the companies are quick to terminate their association; leaving drivers stuck between earning a few bucks and losing their life or livelihood if they follow the company policy and do so unarmed.

Joe Sawyer wants to change the status quo. The city council member in Peachtree City unfortunately knows the dangers of this policy all too well.

His daughter, 31-year-old Lauren Allen, was driving for Lyft when she was shot and killed in November. Dekalb County Police said Allen was dropping off a passenger on Cedar Croft Court when the passenger got into an argument with her boyfriend, and he fired his gun and hit Allen.
“They’re out there driving. They don’t have no protection at all, so we need to do something,” said Sawyer.
That’s why he wants to draft a proposal that allows rideshare drivers to carry a weapon.
“They got to protect themselves. If my daughter had a gun that night, she could have protected herself,” said Sawyer.

Sawyer’s hoping to enlist the help of state legislators to make it clear that the private companies don’t have the authority to usurp the right to armed self-defense for their contracted employees.

Channel 2′s Larry Spruill spoke to Attorney Jessica Cino with Krevolin Horst Law Firm on WSB Tonight at 11 p.m. She said if there was a state law allowing this to happen, it could override the company.
“Now, if we have a state law that says that Uber and Lyft drivers are, in fact, allowed to carry a concealed weapon, the state law will trump the company policy,” said Cino.
Cino said if this legislation is passed, both Uber and Lyft will probably push back in some form. They could have the option to not hire drivers who won’t follow their policies.

Well, there’s no real way for Uber or Lyft to know whether a driver is carrying a concealed firearm unless that firearm is actually used in some way. Would Uber and Lyft pull out of Georgia completely if the state legislature approved a bill specifically barring rideshare companies from disarming their drivers? It’s possible, of course, but I doubt either would take that drastic step.

What we do know is that Uber and Lyft drivers are increasingly becoming the targets of violent criminals. Detroit police are currently investigating a string of violent attacks and carjackings committed against rideshare drivers, with at least three incidents in just the past week.

“For now I’m alive, but I still am scared,” said an Uber driver who was attacked. “Just when I stop my car, they choked me from behind.”
The 40-year-old man picked up three men and two women near Linwood and Davison, on Friday. As he was driving, a suspect in the back seat tried to strangle him and, when the driver stopped, one of the suspects got out and pointed a gun while demanding his 2021 Toyota Venza. They drove off in his car, which was later recovered by police.
“Today it’s me and the next time they’ll target another driver,” the victim said.
The victim thought he was going to die.
“It’s my last night,” he said. “You feel near your death.”

No one should have to choose between earning a couple of bucks and protecting themselves from armed robbers and carjackers. I would love to see legislation in Georgia and elsewhere that precludes these rideshare companies from retaliating against contractors for exercising their right to bear arms in their own vehicles, but in the meantime don’t be surprised if more drivers decide to violate company policy in order to increase their odds of making it home safely at the end of their shift.