from Julius Jung
Monday, August 30, 2021 | 0
The California Superior Court threw the gig platform company sand in the gears.
Julius Jung
On August 20, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional in the Castellanos v. California case.
Worker advocates fought hard against Prop. 22, but were inundated by the tsunami of spending money by gig work firms that broke California spending records for their advertising campaign.
Roesch’s verdict came when he granted a mandate request from several individual passengers and the SEIU union. A previous attempt to bring these issues to the California Supreme Court failed because the court denied a decision on the matter in January 2021 and failed to deliver a statement refusing to hear the matter.
So the court failed to determine the constitutionality of Prop. 22 at the Superior Court. Now we’re going to see the matter go through the California Court of Appeals and likely the California Supreme Court. This process can take a considerable amount of time.
In short, Roesch finds Prop. 22 unconstitutional because it usurps the California Constitution’s guarantee that the legislature has authority over workers ‘compensation – their power to determine what is and is not covered by workers’ compensation.
He also stated that Prop 22. violates the one-compartment rule. And Roesch finds that Prop. 22 pretends to be unconstitutional to restrict the ability of the legislature to pass future laws.
While an appeal is in progress, it is unlikely that the carpooling will change their position on Prop. 22.
What does this all mean for the California workforce?
It is possible for ridesharing employees to file cases with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, which would then have to deal with the constitutionality of Prop. 22.
Perhaps some ridesharing claims were filed with one of the many California Chambers of Labor and then settled, or stayed until Prop. 22 issues were resolved. However, to the best of my knowledge, no carpooling claims by California workers have been resolved by the WCAB.
With the constitutionality of Prop. 22 being questioned, some ridesharing drivers may well choose to pursue California workers’ claims for compensation as they are, in fact, employees under the ABC test run at Dynamex Operations West Inc . v. Supreme Court (2018).
My company, Boxer & Gerson LLP, is one of the largest companies applying for computing for workers in California. But it came as a surprise to many of us that even after Dynamex and before Prop. 22 was passed, few, if any, drivers and relatively few gig workers came forward to enforce workers’ claims for compensation. It is not clear why these claims did not materialize in the system of workers’ compensation.
The benefits package “guaranteed” by Prop. 22 is inferior to benefits under the California workers’ compensation system. Employee compensation benefits are available to most taxi drivers, but not to Uber and Lyft drivers under Clause 22.
Julius Young is an attorney for candidates and an associate at Boxer & Gerson law firm of Oakland. This column was reprinted from his Workers Comp Zone blog on the company’s website with his permission.
Comments are closed.