upper waypoint

Bay Area Judge Rules Uber, Lyft-Backed Prop. 22 Is Unconstitutional

Save ArticleSave Article
Failed to save article

Please try again

An Uber sticker in a car windshield.
The Uber logo is displayed on a car on March 22, 2019 in San Francisco, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A judge Friday struck down a California ballot measure that exempted Uber and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services from a state law requiring drivers to be classified as employees eligible for benefits and job protections.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.

More Prop. 22 coverage

Voters approved the measure in November after Uber, Lyft and other services spent $200 million in its favor, making it the most expensive ballot measure in state history.

Uber said it planned to appeal, setting up a fight that could likely end up in the California Supreme Court.

“This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law,” company spokesperson Noah Edwardsen said. “You don’t have to take our word for it: California’s attorney general strongly defended Proposition 22’s constitutionality in this very case.”

Sponsored

He said the measure will remain in force pending the appeal.

The judge sided with three drivers and the Service Employees International Union in a lawsuit that argued the measure improperly removed the state Legislature’s ability to grant workers the right to access to the state workers’ compensation program.

 

“For two years, drivers have been saying that democracy cannot be bought. And today’s decision shows they were right,” said Bob Schoonover, president of the SEIU California State Council.

An explainer on Prop. 22

Proposition 22 shielded app-based ride-hailing and delivery companies from a labor law that required such services to treat drivers as employees and not independent contractors, who don’t have to receive benefits such as paid sick leave or unemployment insurance.

Uber and Lyft threatened to leave the state if voters rejected the measure.

Labor spent about $20 million to challenge the proposition.

The state Supreme Court initially declined to hear the case in February — mainly on procedural grounds — but left open the possibility of a lower court challenge.

lower waypoint
next waypoint
California Housing Is Even Less Affordable Than You Think, UC Berkeley Study SaysCalifornia PUC Considers New Fixed Charge for ElectricityWill the U.S. Really Ban TikTok?Pro-Palestinian Protests on California College Campuses: What Are Students Demanding?Tunnels Under San Francisco? Inside the Dark, Dangerous World of the SewersUC’s President had a Plan to De-Escalate Protests. How did a Night of Violence Happen at UCLA?Know Your Rights: California Protesters' Legal Standing Under the First AmendmentOakland’s Leila Mottley on Her Debut Collection of Poetry ‘woke up no light’Gaza War Ceasefire Talks Continue as Israel Threatens Rafah InvasionCalifornia Disability Workers’ Raises at Risk as Gov. Newsom Faces Deficit