{"id":1970,"date":"2024-07-25T23:34:58","date_gmt":"2024-07-25T23:34:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/law-classifying-gig-workers-as-contractors-upheld-in-california-supreme-court-justia-news-july-25-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-07-26T15:13:47","modified_gmt":"2024-07-26T15:13:47","slug":"law-classifying-gig-workers-as-contractors-upheld-in-california-supreme-court-justia-news-july-25-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/law-classifying-gig-workers-as-contractors-upheld-in-california-supreme-court-justia-news-july-25-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Law Classifying Gig Workers as Contractors Upheld in California Supreme Court \u2014 Justia News \u2014 July 25, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Workers who drive or deliver food for companies such as Uber, Lyft, or DoorDash can be classified as independent contractors under a law approved by California voters, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.<\/span><\/p>\n

Proposition 22, the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, classifies drivers for app-based transportation or delivery companies as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors in California are not covered by the state\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation laws, while employees are generally covered.<\/span><\/p>\n

Proposition 22\u2019s stated purpose is to protect the right of Californians to choose to work as independent contractors for rideshare and delivery companies, protect the right to set their own hours, require rideshare and delivery companies to offer new protections and benefits for drivers, including minimum compensation levels, insurance for on-the-job injuries and car accidents, health care subsidies, protection against harassment and discrimination, and mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes. It passed with the support of 58.6 percent of voters.<\/span><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the law, Business and Professions Code section 7451, conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which gives the legislature \u201cplenary power, unlimited by any provision of this Constitution, to create, and enforce a complete system of workers\u2019 compensation, by appropriate legislation.\u201d Together with article II, section 10(c), section 7465, they argued, requires voter approval of legislation amending section 7451, limiting the legislature\u2019s \u201cunlimited\u201d power.<\/span><\/p>\n

The trial court found Proposition 22 \u201cconstitutionally problematic\u201d and invalid. The appellate court reversed, finding that there was no conflict between Proposition 22 and article XIV, section 4, but agreeing with the trial court in invalidating severable provisions of Proposition 22.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of California<\/a> ultimately held that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4 because section 4 does not prevent voters from exercising their own power regarding laws affecting workers\u2019 compensation. The court did not rule on whether section 7465 and article II, section 10(c) improperly constrains the legislature\u2019s power. lawyer near me<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Additional Reading<\/b><\/p>\n

California top court upholds ballot measure treating Uber, Lyft drivers as independent contractors<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Reuters<\/span><\/i> (July 25, 2024)<\/span><\/p>\n

Castellanos v. State of California<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Image Credit: <\/b>Tada Images \/ Shutterstock.com<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n