Sam Estreicher is the Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law at NYU School of Law, where he directs the Center for Labor and Employment Law. He served as chief reporter of the Restatement of Employment Law (2015).
I link to an amicus curiae brief that was filed Friday in the Ninth Circuit appeal, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle, No. 17-35640, with the help of Matthew J. Segel and Kymberly K. Evanson of the Pacifica Law Group. The brief offers an alternative ground for affirming the order of the District Court granting the City’s motion to dismiss: the availability of the 1914 Clayton Act’s labor antitrust immunity. The City’s Ordinance is limited to Uber and Lyft drivers who are not “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Labor’s immunity, which precedes by two decades enactment of affirmative federal legislation like the 1935 NLRA and the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, is not based on coverage as statutory employees under these laws. Rather, it turns on whether the individuals seeking shelter under the Clayton Act are “workers” or “laborers”, best defined as individuals who are principally providers of their own services, without significant capital investment, for companies — in this case called “driver coordinators” like Uber and Lyft – who make the necessary business decisions. These coordinators, not the drivers, make the principal entrepreneurial decisions as to what to charge for the drivers’ services, what percentage of that charge goes to drivers’ compensation, and the manner in which services are to be provided. Although sometimes the Clayton immunity is referred to one for labor “acting alone,” the reference is to labor not acting in combination in business groups to cartelize non-labor markets, which is not present in this case. The fact that the City has enacted a framework for deciding who shall represent the drivers and resolving disputes over terms and conditions of the provision of their labor does not derogate from the labor-antitrust immunity of the drivers and their representative. The argument in the brief will be presented greater detail in an upcoming article.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
September 16
In today’s news and commentary, the NLRB sues New York, a flight attendant sues United, and the Third Circuit considers the employment status of Uber drivers The NLRB sued New York to block a new law that would grant the state authority over private-sector labor disputes. As reported on recently by Finlay, the law, which […]
September 15
Unemployment claims rise; a federal court hands victory to government employees union; and employers fire workers over social media posts.
September 14
Workers at Boeing reject the company’s third contract proposal; NLRB Acting General Counsel William Cohen plans to sue New York over the state’s trigger bill; Air Canada flight attendants reject a tentative contract.
September 12
Zohran Mamdani calls on FIFA to end dynamic pricing for the World Cup; the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement opens a probe into Scale AI’s labor practices; and union members organize immigration defense trainings.
September 11
California rideshare deal advances; Boeing reaches tentative agreement with union; FTC scrutinizes healthcare noncompetes.
September 10
A federal judge denies a motion by the Trump Administration to dismiss a lawsuit led by the American Federation of Government Employees against President Trump for his mass layoffs of federal workers; the Supreme Court grants a stay on a federal district court order that originally barred ICE agents from questioning and detaining individuals based on their presence at a particular location, the type of work they do, their race or ethnicity, and their accent while speaking English or Spanish; and a hospital seeks to limit OSHA's ability to cite employers for failing to halt workplace violence without a specific regulation in place.