A California Superior Court has ruled that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional due to it infringing on the Legislature's power to set workplace standards for employees.
On Friday, Aug. 20, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch wrote that Proposition 22, which exempted ride-share and food delivery drivers from having to labor under Assembly Bill 5, as unconstitutional because "it limits the power of a future Legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law” and “appears only to protect the economic interests of the network companies in having a divided, un-unionized workforce.”
“We believe the judge made a serious error by ignoring a century’s worth of case law requiring the courts to guard the voters’ right of initiative. This outrageous decision is an affront to the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Prop 22," Geoff Vetter, spokesperson for the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition (PADS), said in a statement.
Proposition 22 was passed in 2020 with a 58% approval rate after $224 million was spent on the initiative, The Sacramento Bee reported.
"We will file an immediate appeal and are confident the Appellate Court will uphold Prop 22. Importantly, this Superior Court ruling is not binding and will be immediately stayed upon our appeal. All of the provisions of Prop 22 will remain in effect until the appeal process is complete,” Vetter said.
While Proposition 22 exempts drivers and app-based workers from the 2019 labor law where companies are required to give benefits to more workers, some drivers who supported the proposition are outraged by the Supreme Court ruling.
“This ruling is wrong and disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of app-based ride-share and delivery drivers like me who actively supported Prop 22. Eighty-two percent of California drivers are happy Prop 22 passed and 76% say it benefits them personally because it maintains independence and flexibility while providing us with unprecedented new benefits, including a minimum earnings guarantee and access to a stipend for health care coverage," Jim Pyatt, an app-based ride-share driver from the Central Valley, said in a statement.
The SEIU union and group of drives sued the State of California in January in the California Supreme Court in hopes of overturning Proposition 22, but the court declined to hear the case and directed the suit to lower courts.
"It’s clear that the special interests behind this frivolous challenge are attacking the overwhelming will of the voters and the decisive wishes of drivers who fought to remain independent. They want to strip drivers’ ability to work as independent contractors and want to eliminate the historic new benefits offered by Prop 22 including the earnings guarantee, health care, and more. It’s shameful,” Pyatt said.
According to The Sacramento Bee, of more than 500 drivers of advocacy group Rideshare Drivers United surveyed, only 10% said they received health care subsidies detailed in Proposition 22.
The provision of Proposition 22 will remain inactive until the appeals process is completed, The Sacramento Bee reported.