An Alameda County Superior Court judge has found the Prop 22 ballot initiative unconstitutional, “because it limits the power of future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law,” according to the Aug. 20 ruling.
The decision challenges the validity of a ballot question supported by the majority of California voters and will likely be part of a long appeals process, Thomas Lenz, a lecturer at USC Gould School of Law, told the Northern California Record.
“My understanding is that it boils down to two principal things,” Lenz said. “That Proposition 22 interfered with workers compensation law in California; additionally, the proposition interfered with the rights of individuals performing work in their ability to organize a union.
“So those were the stated defects and I expect both will be addressed on further review.”
The rideshare companies have said they intend to appeal, ABC7 reported.
While many poll watchers had expected a close decision in the Prop 22 ballot question last November, it passed by a 17-point margin, 58.6% to 41.3%. The ballot measure decision exempted gig drivers from California’s AB 5 law, a statute from which dozens of industries have received exemptions.
Yet the election results alone wouldn’t be dispositive, said Lenz, who is also a partner handling labor and employment law at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.
The lawsuit was filed early this year by a group of drivers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch issued the court decision.
“I expect Uber and the other companies will fight to preserve Prop 22 and to protect their business model and what they view as the will of the voters,” Lenz said. “And this matter isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon, probably at least a year of appeals.”
In the short term the companies could seek a stay to stop the recent ruling from having an effect.
“I think it’s important for working people as well as business owners to stay tuned for further developments,” Lenz said. “We should expect to continue to see developments in the law and enforcement.”
The ongoing conflict, with its constant developments and battles, is a byproduct of the controversial AB 5 statute, and the rulings that come from the court will be analyzed by many industries and lawmakers.
“It makes it really difficult, if you are performing the work or you're running a business to chart a course forward, because nobody really knows where the rules are going to end up,” Lenz said.