Judge says Uber, Lyft preliminary injunction ruling to come in ‘a matter of days’ – TechCrunch

Judge says Uber, Lyft preliminary injunction ruling to come in ‘a matter of days’ – TechCrunch


California High Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman heard arguments from Ober and Left, as well as lawyers representing the people of California, on the application for an initial restraining order that Ober and Left should immediately reprint their drivers as employees. To force Schulman did not make a decision today, but said “we can expect someone to come in a few days instead of weeks.”

At the hearing, Schulman expressed how difficult it is to determine the implications of the initial order in this case. For example, how Uber And left Skelman said compliance with the order is unknown, as it has economic implications for drivers, such as their ability to earn income, their working hours and their eligibility for state benefits.

“I feel a little bit like I’m being told to jump into a body of water without really knowing how deep it is, how cold the water is and what’s going to happen when I enter,” Schulman said. “

Today’s hearing, with Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco city attorneys, was the result of California Attorney General Xavier Besira, who entered an initial injunction in an attempt to force Ober and Left to comply with 5AB. Did and immediately stopped rating your drivers. Independent contractor.

The new law upholds the 2018 decision of Dynamics Operations West, Inc. and the Superior Court in Los Angeles. In this case, the court applied the ABC test (shortly thereafter) and ruled that Dynamics mistakenly classified its workers as independent contractors on the assumption that “a. The worker who performs the hiring services is employed for claim purposes. Wages and benefits… “

At today’s hearing, lawyers from the state of California, and the people of Uber and Left, discussed the ranking of employees as independent contractors versus employees, including the GIG Workers Protection Bill 5AB, “Employment Holders, “Unemployment Definition Benefits, Sick Leave, Workers’ Compensation Insurance and much more.

Ober and Left maintained that the restraining order would require them to restructure their business in such a way that it would prevent many drivers from being able to work full-time or part-time. Ober and Left’s argument, effectively, is that classifying drivers as employees will result in a reduction in employment.

“The proposed restraining order will cause irreparable injury to the Left and Uber and will actually cause massive damage to the drivers and damage to the riders,” Rohit Singla, a lawyer for the Left, said at the hearing. The Left, for example, estimates that it will cost millions of dollars to process I-9 forms, which confirm employability. It doesn’t cost anything to file this form, but it will require Ober and Left to invest more in their human resources and payroll process.

Furthermore, Singla argued that the preliminary injunction in this case would be strict. His argument resonates with the judge.

“It’s not every day that a judge is asked to issue an order on a preliminary basis, as he has emphasized, it could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of people. And that’s what we’re here for. Working on

But the plaintiff did not agree. San Francisco’s deputy attorney general said the large number of victims was a major reason for the order. Furthermore, Goldberg argued that it was possible for Ober and Left to republish their drivers.

“It’s very viable,” he said. “[…] The corporations of these two businesses already have large, white-collar workplaces. I assure you that each of these workers is getting workers’ compensation insurance and other benefits.

“Administratively, extending these benefits to as many workers as possible is not as difficult as they claim, provided they are already doing so for thousands of workers,” he added.

Additionally, there are elements of Uber and Left-backed Prop 22 (details below) that equate to the requirement of AB 5, so the plaintiffs argue that Uber and Lyft do not suffer irreparable harm in complying with AB 5. Will be. Uber and Lyft, however, do not agree.

In Uber’s opening arguments, Uber’s lawyer, Thein Evangelis, pointed to a number of product changes that “should dispel any doubts about compliance and show that Uber is a technology platform.” ۔ Ober, for example, began allowing drivers to set their own prices in June.

Still, Judge Schulman emphasized Uber’s ability to satisfy Prong B’s ABC test. According to the ABC test, in order for a hiring organization to legally classify a worker as an independent contractor, it must prove that (a) the worker is independent of the control and direction of the hiring agency. (B) Works outside the scope. Entity’s business and (c) regularly engages in “freely established trades, occupations, or similar business dealings.”

“If you look at Uber or Left, they’re not in the business of maintaining an online app on their own,” Schulman said. “It simply came to our notice then. Their business is providing people with paid rides. In plain English, they do. Right? “

Evangelist quickly replied, “No.” He argues that what Ober and Left do is simply connect drivers and riders through their technology platform. He also pointed out the various services offered by Ober Offers and Freight Services. Evangelist kept asking the judge if he would stop it until November, when he would vote for Perry, 22, of California, which is supported by Ober, the Left and others.

The ballot measurement considers the implementation of an income guarantee of at least 120 an of the minimum wage while on the job, 30 cents per mile for expenses, health care allowance, for injuries sustained while on the job. Occupational Accident Insurance, Protection Against Discrimination and Sexual Harassment and Automobile Accident and Liability Insurance. In particular, however, it will place drivers in the category of independent contractors.

Judge Suleiman, however, appeared to be angry over the argument, waiting until November to see what voters would decide.

“I don’t think that’s my role,” he said. “And more importantly, I think, if any of us have learned anything from the 201 election, are many of us unable to predict the outcome of the election; just like that. I am amazed at the validity of the argument. “

Evangelice closed his time by saying that Ober is confident that he will pass the ABC test today.

The initial junction movement was filed in May as part of a lawsuit alleging that Uber and Left workers could benefit from unfair and illegal competition by misrepresenting themselves as independent contractors. The lawsuit alleges that Uber and Left are depriving workers of minimum wages, overtime, paid sick leave, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco High Court, seeks fines of up to 25 2,500 for each violation under California’s Unfair Competition Act, possibly for each senior driver, and 25 2,500 for violations against senior citizens or persons with disabilities. Is.

Meanwhile, Ober and Left are facing another lawsuit alleging theft of wages from the California Labor Commissioner’s Office. The lawsuit, filed in Auckland yesterday, is aimed at enforcing the same 5-AB wage rules.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Close Menu