[ad_1]
The California driver suing the controversial Proposition 22 law said he could “breathe a little easier” after a judge ruled it unconstitutional, but an ongoing legal battle still looms as industry giants are preparing an appeal.
Proposition 22 – a voting measure backed by Uber, Lyft and others – defines carpooling and associated workers as independent contractors instead of employees, a distinction giving them less labor protections under the Act. the state.
The companies spent more than $ 200 million to support the measure, according to the Associated Press. Proposition 22 was approved by Californian voters last November, winning 58% of the vote.
Last Friday, however, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled Proposition 22 to be unconstitutional and unworkable after a lawsuit was brought by three drivers and the Service Employees International Union.
“The court’s decision is not just about us, the drivers, Uber or Lyft,” Hector Castellanos, a full-time carpool driver and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told reporters in an appeal organized by the SEIU Monday. “To me, it also means that companies can’t spend their time following the law.”
“There is a lot to celebrate, and now I feel like I can breathe a little easier,” added Castellanos. “Sometimes it’s hard to find the words to describe how much this means to me. But one thing is for sure, I am delighted to share this news with more drivers and to continue to speak up and advocate for our rights.”
His fellow carpooling driver and requester Michael Robinson added that he felt “relieved”.
“Prop 22 was deceptively written by concert companies to protect their profits,” Robinson said at a press conference hosted by SEIU in California. “I want others to remember this and the court ruling as these same gig companies try to pass copy laws on the road.”
“I’m glad the court sided with the drivers, but the fight is far from over,” said Robinson. “We will continue to highlight how concert companies put their profits above their workers.”
“We will not stop until we are treated with the dignity and respect we deserve,” he added.
Cherri Murphy, a rideshare driver from Oakland, Calif., Told ABC News on Monday that she worked at Lyft for three years before stopping when the pandemic struck last spring because she feared she might risk his exposure and that of his family to the virus. She still works as an organizer fighting for the rights of carpool drivers in the state.
“This court ruling that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional is a major victory for all drivers in California,” she told ABC News on Monday. “What this indicates is that this fight is not over, and it is a major step towards building a more powerful movement to protect application-based drivers.”
Murphy said the law “has disproportionately hurt African Americans, people of color, immigrants and low-wage workers,” and called it a “corporate takeover.”
Lyft referred ABC News’ request for comment to Geoff Vetter, spokesperson for a group dubbed the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition which is backed by Uber, Lyft and others and was a defendant in the SEIU lawsuit .
“We believe the judge made a serious mistake in ignoring a century of case law requiring courts to protect voters’ right of initiative,” Vetter said in a statement. “This outrageous decision is an affront to the overwhelming majority of Californian voters who adopted Proposition 22.”
“We will file an immediate appeal and are confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold Proposition 22,” Vetter added. “It is important to note that this Superior Court decision is not binding and will be immediately suspended upon our appeal. All of the provisions of Proposition 22 will remain in effect until the appeal process is completed. “
Vetter also shared a comment from Jim Pyatt, a California app-based rideshare driver who supported Proposition 22.
“This decision is flawed and disrespectful of the hundreds of thousands of app-based rideshare and delivery drivers like me who have actively supported Proposition 22,” said Pyatt.
“It is clear that the vested interests behind this frivolous challenge attack the overwhelming will of the voters and the decisive wishes of the drivers who fought to remain independent,” he added.
A spokesperson for Uber told ABC News it plans to appeal and the measure will remain in effect pending the appeal.
“This decision ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. You don’t have to take our word for it: the California Attorney General has firmly defended the constitutionality of Proposition 22 in this specific case, ”company spokesperson Noah said. Edwardsen said in a statement.
“We will appeal and we hope to win,” added Edwardsen. “Until then, Proposition 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it offers to self-employed workers statewide.”
Murphy told ABC News that Uber’s announcement came as no surprise.
“It doesn’t surprise me but it disappoints me,” said Murphy.
Scott Kronland, a lawyer representing SEIU in the lawsuit, said on an appeal with information Monday that Judge Roesch’s ruling was “strong” and “well-reasoned”.
“There have been several ways in which the drafters of the initiative went too far and included provisions contrary to our state’s constitution, which is the top law, and so we expect the ruling to be upheld in call, ”Kronland said.
Alma Hernandez, executive director of SEIU California, added that she hopes the judge’s ruling will send a “clear” message to states elsewhere trying to pass similar legislation.
“When you are going to try to go to the polls to buy your own law to deny basic workers rights, there will be a fight, and the law will continue to be upheld by our courts,” Hernandez said.
“I know this is a national program that these companies have been trying to implement across the country, and they are trying to emulate prop. 22 in other states, but it serves as a warning. that these fights will be contested, ”she said. added. “And they’re on the wrong side of the story.”
[ad_2]
Source link